unifi_gen_updatefirewallpolicyordering

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing: it doesn't explain whether the supplied list must be a complete ordering, what happens to policies omitted from it, or how source/destination zone scoping affects the reorder — the exact behavioral facts an agent needs for a destructive operation.

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 core statement is front-loaded in a single readable phrase. The appended 'generated from developer.ui.com/...' provenance string earns little place in the description, as it duplicates metadata rather than telling the agent anything about behavior.

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 mutation with five parameters, no output schema, and a body whose key field has an undocumented nested structure. Given that complexity, a one-line title restatement is far from complete — an agent cannot construct a valid call from this description 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 coverage is only 60%, and the two required parameters (sourceFirewallZoneId, destinationFirewallZoneId) have no description in either the schema or the description text. The body's 'orderedFirewallPolicyIds' is typed as an empty object with no documented shape, and the description does not compensate for any of this.

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?

States a specific verb ('Reorder') and resource ('User-Defined Firewall Policies'), which is more than the title alone conveys. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from the near-duplicate sibling unifi_net_reorder_firewall_policies or from unifi_gen_getfirewallpolicyordering, leaving the agent to guess which one is the current/generated variant.

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?

No indication of when to use this versus unifi_net_reorder_firewall_policies, nor any prerequisite such as first fetching the current order via getfirewallpolicyordering. The confirm/dry_run preview mechanism exists only in the schema, not the description.

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