unifi_gen_creatednspolicy

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that: no statement of what gets created where, whether duplicates are possible, whether changes are reversible, or what the confirmation requirement means in practice.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb, with no padding — but that brevity comes from omission rather than discipline. The dev-docs URL is a minor provenance aid that earns little space for an agent.

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?

This is a destructive, non-idempotent creation call whose safety and preview/confirm mechanics are fully specified in annotations and parameter descriptions. The ancillary schema, notably the anyOf that permits an empty object for body, is unusual, but it is largely self-documenting at the parameter level, so the description does not need to re-explain return values or body structure here.

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% — body, confirm (const "YES") and dry_run all carry their own descriptions — so the schema does the heavy lifting and baseline 3 applies. The description contributes no additional meaning, and notably does not explain the type-dependent nature of the body fields (ipAddress vs ipv6Address vs mailServerDomain per record type).

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 names a specific verb+resource ("Create DNS Policy"), so an agent knows what it does. But it does not distinguish this tool from the near-identical sibling unifi_net_create_dns_policy, nor does it explain what a DNS policy covers versus firewall/traffic-list siblings. The trailing provenance URL is metadata, not clarification.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus unifi_net_create_dns_policy, nor any mention of prerequisites such as site selection or the required record-type fields. The preview/confirm workflow is only implied, and only by the parameter schema, not by the description.

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