Create ACL rule

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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, idempotent=false, openWorld=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only site scoping, and defers behavior to an unresolvable external pointer ("Body shape per ACL API docs"), without saying what a successful apply or preview returns.

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, front-loaded with the action and scope, with no filler. The brevity is appropriate, though the second sentence is close to wasted space given how vague it is.

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, non-idempotent mutation with no output schema, the definition should clarify the preview-versus-apply flow and what the body must contain. It instead points at external docs, leaving the agent under-informed about the consequences of a successful call.

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 100%, so the body, confirm, and dry_run parameters are already documented, establishing the baseline of 3. The phrase "Body shape per ACL API docs" adds no concrete field guidance beyond 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?

"Creates a new ACL rule on the current site" gives a specific verb and resource with site scope. It does not differentiate from the near-duplicate sibling unifi_gen_createaclrule or from unifi_net_update_acl_rule, leaving the agent to infer which create variant to call.

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 statement of when to use this versus unifi_gen_createaclrule or the update/reorder siblings, and no mention that a confirm token is needed to actually apply the rule rather than preview it. Usage is only implied by the tool name.

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