unifi_console_client_command

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and non-idempotent, but the description adds substantial context beyond them: exactly what forget destroys (history, name, note, fixed IP, Local DNS), which commands are reversible (block/unblock) and which are not (forget), that UniFi devices are refused, and that writes require UNIFI_CONSOLE_ENABLE_WRITES and 'client' in UNIFI_CONSOLE_WRITE_ENTITIES, plus journaling.

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?

Front-loads the two-step contract, then the per-command behavior, then the auth gate — a logical ordering with almost no filler. It is dense and somewhat long, but every clause carries operational meaning.

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 no explanation; the description covers the remaining burden — prerequisites, side effects, rollback, irreversibility, and the two-call protocol. An agent has everything needed to invoke this destructive tool safely.

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?

Reported coverage is 0% at the top level, so the description must compensate, and it does: it explains the confirm/fingerprint pairing, when discard_history is required and why, and the rollback implications of each command enum value. It largely restates the nested schema descriptions but adds the semantics (why the fields exist, what each command does) that a bare field description cannot carry.

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 (block, unblock, reconnect, forget) on a specific resource (one client) and scopes it as preview-then-apply. It also implicitly distinguishes itself from sibling unifi_console_client by referring to 'the same switch as the client record tool.' An agent can pick it apart from siblings without opening the 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?

Gives an explicit two-step procedure ('call with confirm=false ... call again with the same fields plus confirm=true and that fingerprint to apply') and states the conditions selecting each behavior. Rollback and irreversibility per command are spelled out, so there is nothing left to infer.

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