unifi_console_dynamic_dns

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

The annotations already flag this as non-readonly and destructive, but the description adds far more: the token is write-only, never read back (listed under secret_fields_not_verified), not journalled; deleting discards the token permanently and rollback can only recreate with a fresh one; every write is journalled. That is rich behavioral context beyond the structured flags.

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?

It is front-loaded with the two-step pattern and well ordered (preview/apply, then update, then token, then delete), and every sentence carries load for a destructive secret-handling tool. It is dense and runs long, but the length is mostly justified by the complexity.

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?

For a destructive, multi-step, secret-bearing operation it covers workflow, prerequisites, parameter interplay, and side effects, and an output schema exists so return-value detail is not needed. An agent has everything required to call it 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?

Beyond the per-field schema text, the description supplies cross-field semantics the schema cannot express: an update keeps the id and must resend the whole entry plus token_env even when only other fields change; delete requires discard_token=true with confirm=true; fingerprint must come from the preview of exactly this change. These interdependencies materially help correct invocation.

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 opening sentence names a concrete verb set (creation, update, deletion) and a specific resource (a Dynamic DNS entry on the gateway), and the tool name separates it from the static-DNS sibling. An agent knows exactly what domain this operates in 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?

It states the mandatory two-step workflow, exactly when to pass confirm=false versus confirm=true plus fingerprint, and the environment prerequisites (UNIFI_CONSOLE_ENABLE_WRITES=true, 'dynamic_dns' in UNIFI_CONSOLE_WRITE_ENTITIES). Nothing about when/how to invoke is left to inference.

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