Update firewall zone

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds zero context — notably it never mentions that the call is destructive, that a 'confirm: YES' is required to actually apply changes, or that omitting it returns a preview. This is a mutation tool where that behavioral note would be most valuable.

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 clean sentence with the verb front-loaded and no filler, but its brevity comes from omission rather than economy — there is nothing to be concise about.

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 an undocumented free-form body, no output schema, and a preview/confirm mechanism, the description is far too thin. An agent cannot determine what payload to send or how to safely stage the change from this text 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 description coverage is only 50% and the 'body' parameter is an untyped empty object with no documentation anywhere. The description does not explain what the body should contain (which zone properties are updatable) or what 'id' refers to, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

The description merely restates the tool name and title ('Update firewall zone' → 'Updates an existing firewall zone') with no additional specificity about what a zone is, which fields can change, or how it differs from the near-identical sibling unifi_gen_updatefirewallzone. An agent learns nothing it could not infer from the identifier alone.

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 unifi_gen_updatefirewallzone, unifi_net_create_firewall_zone, or unifi_net_patch_firewall_policy. No prerequisites, no mention of the preview/confirm workflow that the schema exposes.

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