create_arm_profile

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context by identifying the Fabric proxy endpoint, noting that settings are server-side validated, and flagging the UNIFI_PROTECT_MUTATIONS_ENABLED feature gate. However, it does not describe failure behavior, permission requirements, or side effects beyond the obvious create operation.

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 tight and front-loaded: the operation and endpoint appear first, followed by brief parameter explanations. Each line provides actionable information without repetition or filler.

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 description covers the endpoint, host targeting, all required parameters, the key nested settings fields, server-side validation, and the feature flag. An output schema exists to cover return values. It is not exhaustive about exact settings structure or failure modes, but it is complete enough for an agent to make a well-informed call.

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, and it does. It explains that host accepts console name, ID, or MAC:numericId composite format; clarifies that name is the required display name; and breaks down settings into automations, schedules, recordEverything, and activationDelay. It leaves some ambiguity around the exact settings object shape, but the guidance is substantially more informative than the bare 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 opens with the specific verb and resource pair 'Create an arm profile' and provides the exact endpoint 'POST /v1/arm-profiles via Fabric proxy.' This clearly distinguishes it from the many get/list/update/delete sibling tools that operate on arm profiles.

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 this tool is for creating a new arm profile, and it mentions the UNIFI_PROTECT_MUTATIONS_ENABLED gate, which is useful operational context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of update_arm_profile or update_arm_profile_settings, nor does it provide any exclusion criteria.

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