unifi_protect_list_ptz_presets

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds substantial context beyond that: this server wraps a private API, the official Integration API (separate X-API-KEY auth) is out of scope, and preset creation/driving happens in the Protect app. This prevents an agent from attempting write-style PTZ operations that would fail.

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?

The core purpose is front-loaded in sentence one, and each of the three sentences carries distinct value. The final sentence is dense, packing the API-scope and no-movement caveats with a colon, parenthetical, and em-dash, and could be split into two sentences without losing information.

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 single-parameter read-only list tool with a fully documented schema, the description is nearly complete: it states return content, applicability condition, and surrounding API constraints. The only gap is unspecified behavior when given a non-PTZ camera (empty list vs. error), which is minor.

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% — the cameraId property already documents that it must be the 24-character hex id from unifi_protect_list_cameras, not the name or MAC. The tool description adds no parameter details, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource — lists a PTZ camera's saved preset positions plus the slot number each occupies. It differentiates from siblings by tying meaning to hasPtz: true and implicitly distinguishing presets from patrols (unifi_protect_list_ptz_patrols is a sibling).

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 conditions usage on cameras reporting hasPtz: true in unifi_protect_list_cameras, telling the agent which precondition to check first. It also names what NOT to attempt — moving the camera or running a patrol — and explains those operations exist only on Ubiquiti's official Integration API with separate auth, routing the agent away from a dead end.

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