unifi_create_network

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the management constraint and gives an example, but does not disclose potential side effects, permission requirements, or return behavior. For a creation tool, this is insufficient.

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 very concise: two sentences conveying the purpose, a key constraint, and an example. It is front-loaded and contains no redundant information.

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?

Given the complexity of 10 parameters, many with defaults, and a nested object parameter, the description is incomplete. It lacks explanation for most parameters, does not mention the output (no output schema provided), and provides only one example. The AI would need additional documentation to use this tool correctly.

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 0%, meaning the schema provides no descriptions. The description only explains the management constraint and gives an example for ipv4_configuration. It does not clarify other parameters like name, site_id, vlan_id, or boolean flags, leaving the AI agent to guess their meanings.

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 'Create a new network (VLAN)', specifying the verb and resource. The tool name reinforces this. It distinguishes from sibling tools like unifi_delete_network, unifi_update_network, and unifi_list_networks.

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 gives an important constraint: management must be 'GATEWAY' or 'VLAN_ONLY'. It also provides an example for ipv4_configuration. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., unifi_create_wlan for wireless networks, unifi_create_firewall_group for firewall rules) or any prerequisites.

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