hosts_bulk_actions_set_port_to_hosts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for a multi-host mutation. It discloses nothing about permissions, reversibility, partial-failure behavior, or the confirm/preview gate (that detail lives only in the schema's 'confirm' description). Only the bare PATCH/update semantics are conveyed, which the name already implies.

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?

It is short and front-loads the endpoint, but the brevity is under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness. The 'Tags:' line is metadata boilerplate that does not help an agent decide or call correctly.

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 high-complexity bulk mutation with a deeply nested body, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far too thin. An agent cannot safely determine scope, side effects, or required confirmation from this text alone.

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 description adds no meaning for either parameter. With only 50% schema description coverage and a large nested 'body' object (mapper, internalSquads, subscriptions, etc.), the description should compensate but does not, leaving the complex override/mapper payload entirely to the schema. Note the schema itself does document parts of the body richly, but the description text contributes nothing.

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 states a verb and resource ('Update many hosts') plus the raw PATCH endpoint, so the intent is identifiable. However, it never clarifies that this sets specific host properties (e.g. port/sni/address) in bulk, nor distinguishes it from siblings like hosts_update_host, hosts_bulk_actions_disable_hosts, or hosts_bulk_actions_delete_hosts. The tool name ('set_port_to_hosts') actually narrows scope more than the description 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this bulk endpoint versus the single-host update (hosts_update_host) or the other bulk actions. No prerequisites, no conditions, no alternatives are named. The agent is left to infer everything from the name and HTTP path.

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