network_update_wifi

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It only says 'update', but lacks disclosure of side effects, error behavior (e.g., if wifi_id does not exist), or required permissions. The flexible 'data' object could have destructive consequences without warning.

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 succinct and front-loaded. The docstring-style parameter list is somewhat redundant with the schema but adds a tiny bit of context. No extraneous sentences.

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?

The tool has an output schema (not shown) but the description omits return value details. The undefined 'data' object creates a significant gap. No examples or usage hints are provided, making the description incomplete for a complex update operation.

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 coverage is 0%, yet the description only restates parameter names with minimal context (e.g., 'data: Updated WiFi configuration'). No explanation of valid properties for 'data' or constraints, leaving the agent guessing.

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?

The description clearly states the action (update), resource (existing WiFi broadcast/SSID), and context (local UniFi site). It distinguishes itself from sibling CRUD tools like network_create_wifi and network_delete_wifi.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., network_create_wifi for new SSIDs, network_delete_wifi for removal). No prerequisites or conditions are mentioned.

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