update_mobility_device_network

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that confirm must be true to apply changes and that dry_run previews without applying, but it omits permissions, side effects on existing network configuration, and whether changes are destructive or reversible.

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?

The description is front-loaded with a clear purpose sentence followed by a structured Args list. It is appropriately sized and every line earns its place except for the erroneous 'settings' entry.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, with no annotations and a mutation operation, the description should provide more safety context (permissions, side effects) and should distinguish this tool from its siblings. It is adequate but not complete.

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 10%, so the description should compensate. It adds meaningful semantics for most real parameters (CIDR format, dhcp/none values, lease time 0 = infinite, conditional confirm), but it incorrectly lists a 'settings' parameter that does not exist in the schema and omits 'controller' (though the schema documents that one). The phantom parameter is a defect that reduces the score.

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 (Update), resource (LAN / DHCP settings), and target (UniFi Mobility device). This scope distinguishes it from the wireless-specific and general device update siblings. An agent can immediately tell what this tool changes.

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 says what the tool does but gives no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like update_mobility_device or update_mobility_device_wireless. There are no conditions or exclusions to help the agent select correctly.

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