Update network

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 covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it never mentions that changes are destructive, that a network object is replaced vs patched, or that a confirmation token gates the write.

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 grammatical sentence with no filler, but it is under-specified rather than truly concise — there is essentially nothing to front-load or trim.

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?

A destructive mutation with an undocumented free-form body, no output schema, and no stated response behavior. The description leaves too much of the calling contract unresolved for an agent to act safely.

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 only 50% and the uncovered piece is the critical one: 'body' is an untyped free-form object with no description anywhere. The description does not say what fields the body accepts, so an agent cannot construct an update payload from this definition.

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 restates the title almost verbatim ('Updates an existing network'), giving the verb and resource but no scope, fields, or differentiation from the many sibling network/wifi/firewall update tools, notably unifi_gen_updatenetwork. An agent learns nothing beyond what the name already conveys.

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 or when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of the alternative unifi_gen_updatenetwork sibling, and no prerequisites. The only routing hint in the whole definition comes from the schema's confirm/dry_run descriptions, not the description itself.

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