unifi_console_traffic_object

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

Adds substantial behaviour beyond the annotations: the mandatory two-step preview/apply with fingerprint, stale-preview refusal via re-read, whole-object send semantics, post-apply read-back with 'verified true/false' plus diff and rollback call, journalling, and the gating env vars UNIFI_CONSOLE_ENABLE_WRITES / UNIFI_CONSOLE_WRITE_ENTITIES. This materially exceeds what destructiveHint/idempotentHint alone convey.

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 purpose, then the mandatory workflow, then field semantics, then constraints — a sensible order for a high-complexity tool. The single dense paragraph is longer than ideal and could be broken into clearer clauses, but almost every sentence carries operational information rather than filler.

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-field mutation tool this covers the full arc: preview/confirm handshake, prerequisite acknowledgements, what is left untouched, required env configuration, whole-object update semantics, verification, rollback, and journalling. With an output schema present, the description is not obliged to detail return values yet still flags the key fields reported back.

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?

With reported coverage at 0% on the top-level params object, the description compensates substantially, explaining friendly fields, units ('download_limit / upload_limit in kbit/s (10000 = 10 Mbit/s; 0 switches one off)'), burst modes, schedules, and the route_*/acknowledge_* pairing. Some of this duplicates the nested schema descriptions, but for a single opaque 'params' argument the added semantics are genuinely useful.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource+scope: 'Preview, then apply, a change to the console's traffic objects (Traffic Management: bandwidth limits and priority, schedules, internet blocking and routing for networks or clients).' It enumerates create/change/delete via the action field and names the sub-domains it governs, letting an agent separate it from siblings like unifi_console_qos_rule or unifi_console_firewall_policy.

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 operational guidance: 'call with confirm=false to get a read-only preview ... call again with the same fields plus confirm=true and that fingerprint', and states blocking/rerouting 'need acknowledge_blocking / acknowledge_reroute when the object is switched on'. It also states what it does not edit (app, domain, region matchers, local-network block). It stops short of naming sibling tools as alternatives, so 4 rather than 5.

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