unifi_power_cycle_port

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the core action ('power cycle/restart') and the PoE context, but it does not disclose the disruptive impact on the connected device, required permissions, expected downtime, or whether the action is reversible. This leaves significant behavioral traits unstated 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 concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource, with no wasted words. Every part of the sentence adds value: 'Power cycle (restart)' defines the action, 'PoE switch port on a UniFi Switch' defines the scope, and 'by device MAC and port index' names the required parameters.

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 a simple two-parameter tool, the description covers the essential purpose and targets, making it minimally viable. However, because there is no annotation or output schema, the description could add useful context such as port indexing convention, prerequisites, or side effects. These gaps prevent it from being fully complete, though the tool's inherent simplicity keeps the score above 2.

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 for the bare input schema. It names both parameters ('device MAC and port index'), but provides no additional semantics such as MAC format, whether port_idx is 1-based, or how to discover valid values. This is only marginal improvement over the parameter names in 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?

The description uses a specific verb 'Power cycle (restart)' and clearly identifies the resource as 'a PoE switch port on a UniFi Switch', distinguished from sibling tools like unifi_reboot_device which reboots the whole device. It also specifies the key identifiers (device MAC and port index), leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 implies when to use the tool by clearly stating the target (a PoE switch port) and the required identifiers, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it. There is no mention of using unifi_list_devices to obtain the MAC or of preferring whole-device reboot in other scenarios, so usage guidance remains implied rather than explicit.

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