Update ACL rule

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds one genuinely useful trait beyond them: '(full replacement)', warning that omitted fields are overwritten rather than preserved. It does not explain what gets reset, or that without confirm=YES the call only previews.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, but its brevity is achieved by omitting rather than by compression.

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 mutation with no output schema, an untyped body parameter, and a confirm/dry-run gate, the description is too thin. It never covers payload shape, the two-step preview-then-apply flow, or the effect of a full replacement on existing rule fields.

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 50%, and the uncovered half is the critical one: 'body' is an untyped object with no description anywhere, so the agent has no idea what fields an ACL rule body requires. The description only indirectly implies 'id' is the ACL rule identifier and says nothing about body.

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 ('Updates') plus resource ('an existing ACL rule') and scope ('current site'). The '(full replacement)' qualifier is a meaningful distinction from a partial/patch update, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus unifi_net_create_acl_rule, unifi_net_delete_acl_rule, or the reorder tool, and no prerequisites (rule must already exist, id required). The preview/confirm workflow that gates the mutation 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.