unifi_console_static_dns

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

Annotations declare the safety profile (destructive, non-idempotent, not read-only), but the description adds substantial context beyond them: the mandatory preview/apply handshake, fingerprint staleness enforcement, the write-enable env vars (UNIFI_CONSOLE_ENABLE_WRITES, static_dns), read-back verification with a verified flag, a rollback call, and journaling. It also explains that the console only accepts the whole record, which is essential for a mutation tool.

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-loaded with the core two-step workflow, then layers on validation, prerequisites, and post-apply behavior. It is a dense block rather than short, but nearly every sentence conveys actionable information; only the warnings enumeration is slightly list-like.

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 mutation tool with an output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: the two-phase call sequence, prerequisites, validation behavior, and post-apply verification/rollback. Return-value details are correctly left to the output schema.

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 reported at 0% for the wrapper object, so the description carries weight here, and it does add meaning: confirm/fingerprint semantics, the full-record update rule, and the impact of applying (re-read, verified, rollback). It does not restate per-field rules (target, ttl, record_type), which the nested schema does document, so it stops at 4 rather than 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+resource: managing the gateway's Local DNS records, and enumerates the record types (A, AAAA, CNAME, MX, SRV, TXT) it covers. The 'Local DNS' scoping cleanly separates it from the sibling unifi_console_dynamic_dns, so an agent can pick the right tool without opening either 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 explicit procedural guidance: call with confirm=false for a preview, then call again with the same fields plus confirm=true and the fingerprint, with the note that stale previews are refused. It also lists the refusal/validation conditions (duplicates, CNAME rule, names a client already publishes). It never names an alternative tool or says when NOT to use this one, so it stops short of a 5.

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