Update WiFi broadcast

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 structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that — it never says what a WLAN update can overwrite, that changes are destructive to live broadcast settings, or that a preview is returned unless confirmed.

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 short, front-loaded sentence with no filler — nothing to trim. But the brevity is under-specification rather than efficiency, since a single sentence cannot carry the mutation semantics this tool needs.

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?

This is a destructive mutation with an opaque 'body' object, a confirm/dry-run preview mechanism, and no output schema. The description should explain the payload shape and preview behavior but covers none of it, leaving the agent unable to call the tool correctly from the description 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?

Only 50% of parameters are documented in the schema: 'confirm' and 'dry_run' have descriptions, but 'id' and especially 'body' (an empty, unconstrained schema) are undocumented. The description provides zero parameter information to compensate, so the agent has no idea what fields belong in 'body' for a WiFi update.

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 sentence gives a specific verb (updates) and resource (an existing WLAN), so the basic operation is clear. However, it offers no differentiation from closely related siblings such as unifi_gen_updatewifibroadcast, unifi_net_create_wifi, or unifi_net_delete_wifi, and it uses 'WLAN' where the title says 'WiFi broadcast', leaving the agent to infer they are the same object.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus the generic unifi_gen_updatewifibroadcast or unifi_raw_request. Nothing tells the agent that an existing WLAN id is required or that a preview/confirm flow exists; the only hints live in the schema.

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