unifi_gen_updateaclrule

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds no behavioral context beyond those annotations, such as what happens on preview, whether confirm is required, or how destructive changes are applied.

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 a single terse sentence that mostly restates the title and appends a documentation URL. It is short but under-specified rather than efficiently concise, and the provenance clause does little to help invocation.

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 destructive mutation tool with a complex nested body and no output schema, the description is too thin. It leaves the agent to infer preview/confirm behavior and body requirements from the schema alone.

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 75%, so the schema already explains confirm, dry_run, and body at a high level. The description contributes no additional meaning about aclRuleId or the body structure, relying instead on the vendor URL, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource, 'Update ACL Rule,' but does not distinguish the tool from sibling unifi_net_update_acl_rule or clarify its scope beyond the name. The added provenance URL is not a purpose statement.

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 generated tool versus unifi_net_update_acl_rule, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and schema.

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