unifi_console_support_file

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

Goes well beyond the annotations (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false) by disclosing that the bundle contains plain-text secrets, is saved locally and never returned, takes ~a minute, and requires UNIFI_CONSOLE_ENABLE_WRITES=true, confirm=true, and Control Plane=Admin. These are exactly the auth/side-effect facts an agent needs before calling a write 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 action and scope, followed by tightly grouped prerequisites, side effects, and return shape. Every sentence earns its place, though the secret-handling, permission, and timing details make it denser than strictly necessary for a 6-parameter tool.

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?

Even though an output schema exists, the description summarizes the return shape for both scopes and covers permissions, timing, secret risk, and scope behavior. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this destructive-adjacent write 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?

The description clarifies the meaning of scope ('device' starts generation and reports status only vs console download) and the rationale for confirm=true, adding real semantics. The nested schema itself documents targets, recreate, device_mac and wait_seconds, so the low coverage signal is an artifact of the top-level 'params' wrapper; the only minor gap is that wait_seconds isn't connected to the '~a minute' guidance.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('Generate a support file and ... download it to disk') with clear scope differentiation between console and device. An agent knows exactly what this produces and where it lands, and the behavior is distinct from every sibling (system_log, backup, etc.).

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 concrete when-to-use context: 'the place to look when regular logs do not explain a fault (e.g. an STP problem visible only in device syslog)', which implicitly routes away from unifi_console_system_log. However, it never names an alternative tool or an explicit when-not-to-use, 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.