Create firewall policy

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the site scoping, and its one behavioral hint — 'Body shape per Firewall API docs' — defers to out-of-band documentation rather than describing anything in-band, leaving permission requirements and failure behavior undisclosed.

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 the core action front-loaded; nothing is padded. The second sentence, however, is a low-value external reference that occupies real space without conveying usable information.

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, non-idempotent create with no output schema, and the description says nothing about what a preview returns, what confirm=YES actually applies, permission prerequisites, or validation failures. Given the tool's risk profile, far more in-band behavioral context is warranted.

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 all three parameters are already documented in the schema, which sets the baseline at 3. The description contributes nothing beyond that aside from an unactionable pointer to external API docs for the 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 new firewall policy') and scopes it to 'the current site'. It does not distinguish this tool from the near-identical sibling unifi_gen_createfirewallpolicy, so an agent cannot tell which create path to pick without reasoning externally.

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 versus unifi_gen_createfirewallpolicy, unifi_net_update_firewall_policy, or unifi_net_patch_firewall_policy. The preview-vs-apply workflow (confirm/dry_run) is a key selection consideration and is never mentioned in the description.

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