unifi_gen_updatednspolicy

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, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing on top — it does not disclose that a preview/dry-run is available or that 'confirm=YES' is required to actually apply changes, both of which are important context for a destructive mutation. There is no contradiction, but zero added behavioral value.

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?

Two short sentences with no wasted words and the purpose front-loaded. However, brevity here reflects under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness — there is very little content to be concise about, and the second sentence only cites a source URL.

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, open-world mutation with no output schema and a confirm/preview gate, the description should explain the apply-vs-preview workflow and irreversibility. It instead gives one restated sentence, leaving the agent to infer the entire confirmation protocol 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 carries most of the parameter meaning (confirm, dry_run, body fields). The description adds nothing about any parameter, and the only hint is a bare reference to the vendor docs page. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Update DNS Policy' is essentially the tool name (unifi_gen_updatednspolicy) de-slugified, plus a source URL. It states a verb and resource but adds no information beyond the title and gives no differentiation from the sibling unifi_net_update_dns_policy, which appears to do the same thing. This is tautological rather than clarifying.

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 guidance, no preconditions, and no mention of the critical preview/confirm workflow that the schema implies. It also does not help the agent choose this tool over the nearly identical unifi_net_update_dns_policy sibling. The description provides no routing signal at all.

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