unifi_gen_createnetwork

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the danger profile is known. The description adds nothing beyond that — no note about prerequisites such as an existing site, VLAN availability, or that duplicate creation is non-idempotent.

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 short line with no bloat, but that brevity is under-specification rather than economy. The only content beyond the name is a vendor documentation URL, which is marginally useful but not front-loaded guidance.

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, open-world create operation with a large nested body schema and no output schema. Given that complexity, the description should say what is being created, what the confirm gate implies, and how it relates to unifi_net_create_network; it says none of that.

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 body payload, its required fields (name, vlanId, enabled, management), the confirm gate, and dry_run are all documented in the schema. The description contributes no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline of 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 names a verb and resource ("Create Network"), which is intelligible, but it essentially restates the tool name and adds only a provenance URL. It gives no indication of what a network object is or which of the near-identical siblings (unifi_net_create_network, unifi_gen_updatenetwork) it should be preferred over.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of the confirm/dry_run preview workflow that governs whether the call actually mutates anything. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name.

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