ecp_network_update_port_maps

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does disclose two important side effects: it modifies nginx config and can affect site routing. However, it omits details such as whether the mapping is replaced or merged, whether changes are reversible, and what failure or validation behavior to expect.

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 no wasted words. The core action is front-loaded, and the warning about site routing is placed deliberately at the end. This is concise without losing useful signal.

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 mutating network config tool with 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is too sparse. It gives an agent a general idea but not enough to safely call the tool with correct parameter semantics or to predict side effects and ordering requirements.

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 by explaining what domain, host_port, guest_port, https, and description mean. It does none of this, leaving an agent to guess which side maps to host versus container and what the https flag controls.

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 action ('Update') and resource ('port mapping') plus a meaningful secondary effect on nginx config. It is clearly distinct from nearby list-style siblings like ecp_network_port_maps and ecp_network_domain_port_maps, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself.

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 tool versus alternatives, nor when not to use it. The phrase 'Can affect site routing' is a caution, not usage direction; an agent is left to infer that it should first list port mappings or verify the domain before calling.

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