Call the legacy web-UI API

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose two real traits: it requires OMADA_WEB_USER/PASS credentials and it follows the same write rules as omada_call (i.e. it can mutate). It does not explain the undocumented `confirm` gate, session/cookie handling or expiry, or what happens on auth failure, which matters for a 6-param transport that can issue DELETE.

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?

Two tightly written sentences, front-loaded with the fallback role and immediately followed by the credential requirement and path-discovery tip. No filler; only the missing `confirm` explanation keeps it from a 5.

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 low-coverage schema, no annotations, and no output schema, the description omits too much: the meaning and necessity of `confirm`, how `body`/`query`/`pathParams` are composed, and what a response looks like. An agent could construct an unintended mutating call from this definition.

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 description coverage is only 33% across 6 parameters, yet the description adds nothing about `body`, `query`, `pathParams`, `method` defaulting, or `confirm`. The one detail it does give (the /{omadacId} prefix being added) is already stated in the path parameter's schema description, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 resource (the session API the Omada web UI itself uses, /{omadacId}/api/v2/...) and its role as a fallback transport for settings the Open API does not expose. This cleanly separates it from omada_call (Open API) and omada_describe_api/omada_search_api, so an agent can route 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?

Explicitly frames itself as a fallback for settings the Open API does not expose, which implies the alternative (use omada_call first), and gives concrete guidance on discovering paths (browser network tab, community API notes). No explicit 'do not use for X' exclusion, so 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.