unifi_console_switch_port_detail

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuinely useful context by disclosing the record-trimming behavior (1 MB+ record reduced, kept-key rules so new firmware fields surface) and that secrets are removed. This is real behavioral disclosure beyond structured fields.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and the return shape last. The key-matching parenthetical is dense but directly explains behavior, so nothing is wasted.

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?

With an output schema present it need not explain return values, and annotations cover safety; the description still adds the trimming rule. The remaining gap is routing guidance against the many sibling switch/port tools and the required device_mac workflow.

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?

It mentions the optional LLDP toggle, mapping to include_lldp, and describes field filtering. But it says nothing about the required device_mac or the ports subset filter, so with low schema coverage the description only partially compensates for the two undocumented parameters.

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 and scope: live per-port state for a switch, enumerating exactly what is reported (link, STP state/role, flaps, errors, PoE, LLDP). An agent can distinguish this from a generic switch/device listing, though it does not explicitly name the closest sibling (unifi_console_switch_port).

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?

No explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of the sibling tools it could be confused with (unifi_console_switch_port, unifi_console_poe_overview). Usage is only implied by the word 'live', and the 'find it with existing device list tools' hint lives in the schema, not the description.

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