UniFi raw request

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: auth, retry, error parsing, and pagination hints are handled automatically, which tells the agent it need not manage tokens or backoff. It does not mention the preview/confirm gate or rate limits, though the schema documents confirm and dry_run.

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?

Three short sentences, zero padding, with the escape-hatch framing and the target endpoint front-loaded. Each clause carries distinct information: what it does, when to use it, and what is automated.

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 an open-world, destructive, arbitrary-method tool with six rich parameters and no output schema, the definition covers purpose, routing, and automated plumbing. Gaps are minor: it does not say how unknown paths or API errors surface, nor does it flag that the destructive hint means real mutations when confirm is supplied.

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 100%, including the path pattern, method enum, confirm constant, and dry_run preview semantics, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description only adds the '{path}' composition hint. Baseline 3 applies where structured data does the heavy lifting.

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 and resource: executes any HTTP method against api.ui.com{path}. It also positions itself against the dedicated siblings with 'Use when no dedicated tool exists', so an agent can distinguish it from the ~140 purpose-built tools immediately.

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?

'Use when no dedicated tool exists' is a clear routing rule that covers the main decision an agent faces with this tool family. It stops short of guidance on verifying a path, choosing preview versus apply, or cautioning that the escape hatch bypasses validation, so the when-not side is thinner than the when.

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