tenki_unexpose_port

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

Annotations already mark this as destructive with readOnlyHint=false, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations by specifying that the operation takes the public URL/preview offline, which tells the agent what is affected.

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 two compact sentences. The primary effect is front-loaded, and the usage relationship to tenki_expose_port is included in a single efficient clause with no redundant wording.

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 simple two-parameter operation with annotations covering destructive behavior, the description is largely complete: it identifies the resource, the effect, and the counterpart tool. No return value is described, but with no output schema this is a minor gap rather than a blocking omission.

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 input schema already documents both parameters with clear descriptions and 100% coverage. The description adds minimal parameter meaning beyond confirming the port being removed is one previously exposed; therefore the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Remove') and resource ('inbound port exposure from a sandbox'), and clearly states the observable effect: the public URL/preview goes offline. It also names its sibling counterpart tenki_expose_port, making the tool's role unambiguous.

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 clearly states when to use it: to un-publish a port previously exposed with tenki_expose_port. It does not explicitly list exclusions or compare against preview-related siblings, but the 'previously exposed with tenki_expose_port' condition is a strong usage signal.

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