unifi_console_backup

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing that download builds a fresh archive into the server's download folder, is never returned to the caller, contains credentials, and requires elevated permissions. It also clarifies per-action safety (list read-only, create side-effecting), which the coarse tool-level annotations cannot express.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, then action-specific behavior and return shape follow in tight, information-dense prose. No sentence is wasted; each adds a distinct operational fact.

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?

Despite a rich output schema being present, the description helpfully summarizes both return shapes (list's data array vs download's saved_file with path/bytes/sha256) and covers the auth/environment prerequisites. Nothing an agent needs to call it safely is missing.

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?

With schema coverage reported at 0%, the description carries the burden and largely delivers: it explains action modes and the confirm requirement for create/download. It is less explicit about the 'target' parameter's per-part restriction (uos/network/users), leaving that to the schema, so it is strong but not fully compensating.

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 set (list/create/download) and resource (UniFi OS console backups), and immediately scopes it as 'whole console, not just the Network app'. An agent can distinguish it from sibling tools like unifi_console_network_list or unifi_console_support_file without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly explains each action mode and the prerequisites that gate them: create needs UNIFI_CONSOLE_ENABLE_WRITES=true and confirm=true, download needs confirm=true, and all console-level calls need Control Plane permission raised from View to Admin. It also marks list as read-only, giving clear when-to-use-and-what-it-requires guidance.

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