unifi_gen_updatewifibroadcast

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 description's bar is lower, but it adds nothing at all — no warning that this overwrites an existing broadcast's full configuration, no mention of the preview-then-confirm gate, and no permission context.

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?

A single sentence with zero filler, so nothing is wasted — but that brevity is under-specification rather than efficiency. The docs URL is the only added content and does not convey actionable information an agent can use mid-task.

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 mutation with a large, complex body schema (required fields, enum type, many nested vendor objects) and no output schema. The description should at minimum flag full-replacement semantics and the confirm/dry_run safety flow, and it says neither.

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%: body, confirm and dry_run carry substantive descriptions in the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate. The description contributes nothing extra, and wifiBroadcastId remains undescribed in both places, so it does not compensate for the remaining gap.

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 clear verb and resource ("Update Wifi Broadcast"), distinguishing it from siblings like unifi_gen_createwifibroadcast and unifi_gen_deletewifibroadcast via the verb. However, the rest is a provenance URL, so the agent learns nothing about what a 'wifi broadcast' is or what scope of settings gets updated beyond the name itself.

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 versus unifi_gen_createwifibroadcast or unifi_gen_getwifibroadcastdetails, and no mention of prerequisites. The preview/confirm workflow exists only in the parameter descriptions in the schema, not in the tool description.

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