update_mobility_device

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a meaningful safety gate: confirm must be true to apply, and dry_run previews without applying. However, it omits permissions required, reversibility of a rename, side effects, and what happens if confirm is false with dry_run false.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One front-loaded purpose sentence followed by a compact arg list. No filler, and the key safety parameter (confirm) is clearly annotated. Every line earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the safety-gating parameters are covered. But the definition references a 'settings' argument absent from the schema, and gives no permission or side-effect context for a mutation tool with zero annotations.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is only 17%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: it documents name as required with a 1-32 character constraint and explains confirm/dry_run semantics that the schema only shows as bare anyOf booleans/strings. The one weak spot is 'settings: Application settings,' which is vague and does not even appear in the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Rename a UniFi Mobility device.' The verb 'rename' cleanly distinguishes it from the sibling mutations update_mobility_device_network and update_mobility_device_wireless, which touch other aspects. It is not a tautology, though it never explicitly names those siblings.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description never says when to choose this tool over its near-identical siblings (update_mobility_device_network, update_mobility_device_wireless) or list_mobility_devices/get_mobility_device. The confirm/dry_run notes imply a write workflow but give no contextual selection guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.