Delete WiFi broadcast

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the "IRREVERSIBLE." line mostly restates structured data. It adds emphasis but no new behavior: nothing about required permissions, what happens to dependent clients/profiles, or how the preview mode behaves. With annotations covering the safety profile, this is adequate but thin.

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 sentences with zero filler, and the destructive consequence is front-loaded right behind the action. Nothing could be trimmed without losing meaning.

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 three-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description should say what the preview returns and that the id is a WLAN id. Annotations carry the safety signal, but the agent still has to infer the preview/confirm workflow from the schema alone.

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 coverage is 67%; the confirm and dry_run parameters are documented in the schema, and the bare "id" parameter is not described anywhere. The description adds no syntax or format meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ("Deletes a WLAN"), so the agent knows exactly what the tool acts on. It does not distinguish itself from near-duplicate siblings such as unifi_gen_deletewifibroadcast or unifi_net_delete_network, which is the only thing keeping it from a 5.

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 the sibling wifi broadcast delete/update tools, and no mention of prerequisites such as fetching the WLAN id first via unifi_net_list_wifi. The safety flow (confirm="YES" vs preview, dry_run) exists only in the schema, not in the description.

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