unifi_create_wlan

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the obvious (that it creates an SSID) but does not mention side effects like whether the network becomes immediately active, whether duplicate names are rejected, permission requirements, or idempotency behavior. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 a single, direct sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded and easy to parse. However, it is so minimal that it borders on under-specification; the sentence earns its place but leaves much unsaid.

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?

The tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description only covers the core action, leaving out important details like required fields, passphrase constraints, and behavior of boolean flags. An agent would need additional documentation or trial-and-error to invoke this correctly. This is not 'complete enough' for autonomous use.

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 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters. It does not. The schema exposes 'name', 'enabled', 'is_guest', and 'x_passphrase', but the description adds no meaning. 'x_passphrase' is particularly obscure—it likely means the Wi-Fi passphrase, but this is left to inference. An agent cannot correctly construct a call without guessing parameter intent.

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 'Create a new Wi-Fi SSID network' uses a specific verb ('create') and a clear resource ('Wi-Fi SSID network'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings such as unifi_update_wlan and unifi_delete_wlan, and even clarifies that it creates a WLAN rather than a general network (which unifi_create_network might do).

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like unifi_update_wlan or unifi_set_wlan_password. It does not mention prerequisites, such as whether a site must be selected, or exclusions, such as not using this for guest networks if is_guest is required.

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