Create DNS policy

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint, so safety is covered; the description adds only the 'current site' scope. It never mentions the confirm/dry_run preview pathway that the schema exposes, so the agent does not learn from prose that this can be safely rehearsed.

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 filler, which is good. But the second sentence is a punt that consumes space without informing, leaving the definition thin rather than tight.

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 create with an unconstrained body object and no output schema, yet the description says nothing about what a valid policy payload must contain or what happens on success. Deferring to external 'Network API docs' leaves a critical gap for an agent that only sees this definition.

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%, and the schema itself documents confirm and dry_run well, so baseline 3 applies. However, the description's only parameter-related content is 'Body shape per Network API docs', which points away from the tool rather than clarifying the untyped body payload.

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 and resource (creates a DNS policy) and scopes it to the current site. It does not distinguish itself from the near-duplicate sibling unifi_gen_creatednspolicy, so an agent cannot tell from the description which create path to pick.

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 guidance on when to use this rather than unifi_gen_creatednspolicy, nor any note that an existing policy should be updated instead (unifi_net_update_dns_policy). Usage is only implied by the verb.

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