mmar_create_port

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral transparency. It only states the core action and a definition of a port, but omits prerequisites (e.g., existing class, session), behavior on duplicate or invalid input, side effects, and return value. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action, followed by a helpful definition. No redundancy or fluff. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

The tool is relatively simple with two parameters and a helpful schema, but the description omits the return value and any preconditions. Without annotations or an output schema, a bit more context (e.g., what happens on success/failure) would improve completeness.

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 schema already provides 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for both parameters (uuid and port_data). The description adds conceptual context about ports but no additional parameter-specific guidance. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the heavy lifting.

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 ('Create') and resource ('port'), clearly stating the target ('on a class'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like mmar_update_port and mmar_create_port_instance. It also adds a concise definition of a port, removing ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 indicates this is for creating class-level ports ('on a class'), which helps differentiate from mmar_create_port_instance. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it falls short of the highest level of explicit guidance.

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