Update firewall policy

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's '(full replacement)' is a genuinely useful behavioral addition — it warns that omitted fields will be overwritten — but it says nothing about the confirmation/preview gate (confirm='YES', dry_run) that governs whether anything is actually applied.

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, and the most decision-relevant qualifier ('full replacement') is placed where it will be read. It is, however, arguably too terse for a destructive 4-parameter 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 an empty object schema for 'body', the description omits what the payload must contain, what happens to unmentioned fields, and how the preview mode works. The gap left by the unstructured body parameter is not compensated anywhere in the description.

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 only 50%: 'id' and a completely empty 'body' object are undocumented, while only 'confirm' and 'dry_run' carry schema descriptions. With the payload shape for a firewall policy entirely unspecified, the description should at minimum state that 'body' must contain the complete policy, but it does not.

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 (Updates) and resource (firewall policy) scoped to an existing policy, and the parenthetical '(full replacement)' meaningfully separates it from the patch sibling. It does not name unifi_net_patch_firewall_policy explicitly, so an agent must infer which to pick.

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 statement of when to prefer this over unifi_net_patch_firewall_policy or unifi_gen_updatefirewallpolicy, and no mention of prerequisites such as needing the full policy body or the confirmation workflow. The only guidance is the implicit '(full replacement)' hint.

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