unifi_protect_request

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

Annotations readOnlyHint=true align with the description's 'only GET is permitted'. The description adds important extra behavior not in annotations: responses are returned raw and unshaped, can be hundreds of kilobytes, and writes can be enabled via UNIFI_PROTECT_ALLOW_WRITES=1. This is exactly the kind of context agents need. No contradiction with annotations.

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 description is front-loaded with the 'escape hatch' framing, then explains rationale, warns about raw responses, and states write restrictions. Each sentence earns its place; slightly long but justified for an undocumented endpooint escape hatch.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description covers return behavior, size caveats, write restrictions, and the conditional override. Combined with a fully described schema, an agent has enough to call and interpret this tool correctly.

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%, so the schema already documents path, query, body, and method. The description itself does not add parameter-level details, but it does clarify the write-disabled context and raw response behavior. 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?

The description clearly states a specific purpose: directly call any private Protect API endpoint relative to /proxy/protect/api. It differentiates from the wrapped sibling tools by framing itself as an 'escape hatch' and explicitly says 'prefer the wrapped tools, which summarize.'

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?

It provides explicit when-to-use: when a wrapped tool starts returning 404 because Ubiquiti moved an endpoint. It also tells the agent to prefer wrapped tools and warns against broad endpoints like bootstrap. This is strong routing guidance relative to the siblings.

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