nat_add_port_forward

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the protocol values ('tcp'/'udp'), but says nothing about permissions required, persistence across reboots, whether the rule is applied immediately, or conflicts with existing rules — significant gaps for a network-config 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?

Two short sentences with the action front-loaded and no padding. It is efficient, though it is terse to the point of under-specification rather than genuinely economical.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and five required undocumented parameters, the description is not sufficient. It covers only the protocol value and omits behavioral traits, parameter meanings, and any usage context an agent would need.

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% with 5 required parameters, so the description must compensate. It only clarifies one parameter (protocol = 'tcp' or 'udp'); the roles of name, external_port, destination_port, and especially destination_ip_last_octet are left entirely unexplained.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Ajoute une redirection de port'), making the create-style action clear. Its name (nat_add_port_forward) and the sibling nat_remove_port_forward let an agent infer the distinction, but the description itself does not explicitly differentiate the tool from its siblings.

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?

It states what the tool does but gives no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite guidance. There is no mention of the nat_remove_port_forward alternative or of situations where port forwarding should not be configured.

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