unifi_update_network

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it discloses the update mechanism (fetch, merge, PUT) and the manageability constraint. However, it omits side effects, error behavior, or authorization needs.

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 concise at three sentences, front-loading the main action. It efficiently conveys the core process without redundancy, though it could be slightly more structured.

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?

With 11 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficiently complete. It lacks parameter details, return value description, and error conditions, making it hard for an agent to invoke correctly without additional knowledge.

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%. The description only highlights the management parameter's enum values but does not explain other parameters like network_id, site_id, or the optional fields. It mentions 'merges your changes' but does not clarify semantics of default null values (no change).

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 tool updates an existing network, explaining the fetch-merge-PUT process. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like unifi_create_network and unifi_delete_network.

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 mentions required fields (management) and a constraint (system-defined networks are updatable but not deletable). However, it does not explicitly say when to use this versus create or other update tools, nor does it provide guidance on prerequisites or when not to use it.

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