unifi_gen_updatenetwork

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond a documentation URL: it does not say whether the update is a full replace or a partial patch, what happens to omitted fields, or that this is irreversible against a live controller.

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?

It is short, but shortness here reflects under-specification rather than concision. The single generated-from string plus URL is not front-loaded with anything an agent can act on, and no sentence earns a place beyond citing provenance.

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 4 parameters, the description supplies nothing: no statement of effect, reversibility, permission requirements, or what the preview mode returns. The doc link is the only supplementary anchor and is not usable guidance on its own.

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%, which would ordinarily provide a baseline of 3, but the description itself contributes zero parameter meaning — the field-level guidance (confirm/dry_run preview semantics, "top-level vendor fields only") lives in the schema, not the description. The one genuinely ambiguous point, that body is a full vendor payload with required name/vlanId/enabled/management, is left entirely to the schema.

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 reads "Update Network - generated from developer.ui.com/network/v11.0.97/updatenetwork", which essentially restates the tool name and appends a source-doc path. It conveys that a network resource is updated but gives no scope, no distinction from the many sibling update tools (unifi_net_update_network, unifi_gen_updatewifibroadcast), and no indication of what 'update' means here.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. Notably, sibling tools unifi_net_update_network and unifi_gen_updatenetwork appear to cover the same operation, and the description offers nothing to disambiguate them or to explain prerequisites such as needing an existing networkId.

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