unifi_set_client_usergroup

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It states the action 'Assign' but does not reveal side effects such as overwriting existing user group assignments, whether the client must be online, or any permissions required. This lack of detail makes the mutation behavior insufficiently transparent.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It efficiently conveys the core action and object, earning a perfect score for conciseness and structure.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema coverage. The description only states the action, not prerequisites, expected results, or how to source the IDs. For a mutation tool, this is incomplete, as the agent is left without guidance on what happens after invocation or how to prepare inputs.

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?

The schema has no descriptions for its two parameters, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by mapping 'client device' to user_id and 'User Group' to usergroup_id. However, it doesn't specify that these IDs are obtained from other tools (e.g., unifi_list_clients, unifi_list_user_groups), leaving room for ambiguity. The description adds value but does not fully resolve parameter semantics.

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 clearly states the action ('Assign'), the resource ('client device'), and the object ('bandwidth rate-limiting profile (User Group)'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like unifi_set_client_name and unifi_block_client by specifying the rate-limiting aspect, making the tool's unique purpose evident.

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 usage: to assign a bandwidth profile to a client. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives (e.g., unifi_block_client) or mention prerequisites like creating a user group first. There is no exclusionary guidance, so the usage context is implied but not fully articulated.

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