Update an existing UniFi traffic rule by ID, patching only supplied fields to change its action, matching target, or enabled state.
Update an existing traffic rule by id. Pass any subset of fields to patch.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The _id of the traffic rule to update | |
| payload | Yes | Partial rule fields to update (description, action, matching_target, enabled, target_*_ids, etc.) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that this is a partial patch rather than a full replacement, which is a useful behavioral trait. It omits failure behavior and permission requirements, but the simple mutation semantics are reasonably clear.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with the verb and object, and no filler or redundant context. Every word earns its place.
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 two-parameter update with no output schema, this is largely complete: an agent can determine the required id and partial payload shape. It could mention error behavior or whether the rule must exist, but the core invocation needs are covered.
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 100% and already explains id and payload in detail, including example field names. The description's 'Pass any subset of fields to patch' only reinforces the schema without adding new parameter-level insight.
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?
Clearly identifies the action (update), resource (traffic rule), and key discriminator (by id). Distinguishes from get/delete siblings, though not from ensure_traffic_rule.
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 a clear patch convention: pass any subset of fields. Does not explicitly contrast with ensure_traffic_rule or state prerequisites, but 'existing traffic rule' implies the primary use case.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.