Reorder ACL rules

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds only the site scoping; it does not disclose the confirm="YES" / dry_run preview gate (left entirely to the schema) or whether omitted rules lose their position. With annotations doing the heavy lifting, this is a minimal contribution rather than a contradiction.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler and no repetition of the title. It is efficient, though the brevity borders on under-specification for a destructive mutation.

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, open-world mutation with no output schema, the description says nothing about what the ordering payload must contain (all rule IDs? partial?), what happens to rules not listed, or that a preview is returned unless confirm is supplied. The schema covers the two flags, but the core mutation semantics remain unstated.

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 both confirm and dry_run are documented inline, including the preview fallback. The description contributes nothing beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies; the opaque `body` payload is undocumented in both places, which is a real gap but not a description-specific failure.

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?

Specific verb+resource+scope: "Sets the ordering of ACL rules on the current site." The resource (ACL rules) distinguishes it from the sibling reorder tools (unifi_net_reorder_firewall_policies) and from the read counterpart unifi_net_get_acl_rule_ordering. It stops short of saying what the ordering payload is or that the whole ordering is replaced.

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 and no alternatives named — an agent must infer on its own that unifi_net_get_acl_rule_ordering should be called first to learn the current order, and that unifi_net_reorder_firewall_policies is a different resource. Nothing in the description hints at the preview-vs-apply workflow.

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