create_wlan

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

While destructiveHint already marks mutation, the description adds concrete behavioral context: immediate application, persistence on the UniFi console, WPA2/WPA3 transition behavior, legacy client support, and guest isolation. This meaningfully expands on 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 summary sentence is front-loaded, followed by a clear mutation warning and an organized Args list. Despite covering eight parameters, every sentence carries useful information and the structure 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 create operation with only destructiveHint as annotation, the description covers required inputs, all defaults, security behavior, VLAN/guest options, site/device selection, and verification via get_wlans. Nothing essential for a correct call is missing.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description improves on the schema by explaining why wpa3_transition retains WPA2 for legacy clients and by relating network_conf_id and is_guest to networking intent, though much of the Args section mirrors the schema.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Create a wireless network (SSID)' and immediately names the default security mode. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_wlans, update_wlan, and delete_wlan.

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 gives clear context: it is a create operation applied immediately and persisted, and it explicitly routes to get_wlans for inspection. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or point to update_wlan/delete_wlan for existing SSIDs, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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