cloud_insts_dis_portsec

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It mentions disabling but omits side effects, required permissions, reversibility, or instance state prerequisites for a 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?

The description is structured with 'Args:' and 'Note:' sections, making it organized. It is appropriately sized, though the note mixes parameter advice with procedural steps.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain return values, confirmations, or side effects. It lacks these, and fails to mention prerequisites for a mutation tool.

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. Notes on project_id and region_id (numeric, resolution) add value, but port_id is not described, and extra_* parameters lack explanation.

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 'Disable port security for instance interface', which specifies the action and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tool 'cloud_insts_en_portsec' (presumably enable), relying on naming convention alone.

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 provides parameter resolution guidelines (numeric IDs, fallback to defaults) but does not explain when to use this tool versus alternatives like enabling or managing security groups.

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