create_port_forward

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

Annotations only provide destructiveHint: true, but the description adds operational detail: 'Mutating operation: applied immediately and persisted on the UniFi console.' It also surfaces the workflow of reviewing and deleting rules, which is useful context beyond the annotation.

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?

The description is well-structured with a clear purpose statement, a prominent mutating-operation warning, and targeted sibling guidance. The Args list is somewhat redundant with the schema, but the overall length is justified and each section is easy to scan.

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 8-parameter mutating tool with no output schema, the description covers the operation's effect, persistence, related tools, and an alternative. It gives an agent everything needed to decide when to call it and what the result will be.

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%, so the schema already documents every parameter. The description's Args section largely restates the schema rather than adding new meaning, though it usefully distinguishes fwd_port vs dst_port as external vs internal ports.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Create a port-forwarding rule that opens an external WAN port and maps it to an internal host/port.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from related siblings by name-checking create_firewall_policy, get_port_forwards, and delete_port_forward.

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?

The description explicitly instructs the agent to review existing rules with get_port_forwards first, to remove rules with delete_port_forward, and to prefer create_firewall_policy for zone-based/stateful filtering. This gives clear decision criteria for selecting this tool over alternatives.

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