zte_add_port_forward

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description does not elaborate on behavioral traits beyond 'control total'. It does not contradict annotations but adds minimal transparency.

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 brief and front-loaded with purpose and guidance, followed by a concise parameter list. Every sentence serves a purpose.

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 the complexity (7 required parameters and no schema descriptions), the description fully explains all parameters, provides usage guidance, and references an alternative tool. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values.

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 coverage is 0%, so description compensates by explaining each parameter. For example, 'external_port_end: Puerto externo final (igual que start para 1 puerto)' adds meaning beyond the schema's titles and types.

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 it adds a port forwarding rule with full control, using specific verbs and resource. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'zte_open_port' by noting that 'zte_open_port' is for common cases with smart defaults.

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?

Explicitly provides guidance: 'Para el caso comun (un solo puerto -> IP local en el mismo puerto), considera usar zte_open_port, que tiene defaults inteligentes.' This tells the agent when to use this tool vs an alternative.

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