Create network

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the write/destructive profile is covered. The description adds only that it targets the current site and defers payload shape to external 'Network API docs' — no word on irreversibility, conflicts with existing networks, or failure modes.

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 action front-loaded and no filler. Brevity is efficient, though it borders on under-specification rather than tightness.

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?

A destructive create on an untyped body parameter with no output schema needs more than a docs pointer: what a network payload minimally requires, how it relates to the parallel unifi_gen_createnetwork, and what a preview returns are all absent.

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 confirm/dry_run safety gates are fully documented in the schema, so baseline 3 applies. The one description contribution — 'Body shape per Network API docs' — signals that the opaque, untyped body must be sourced externally, which is marginally useful but not real semantics.

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?

Clear verb+resource and a scope qualifier ("current site") make the purpose immediately legible. It does not differentiate itself from the close sibling unifi_gen_createnetwork (or from unifi_net_update_network), so an agent has no textual basis for choosing between two network-creation tools.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, no named alternative. Nothing says when to pick this over unifi_gen_createnetwork, nor when a preview (dry_run) is appropriate versus a real apply.

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