mmar_create_port_instance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action and target, without mentioning prerequisites like a valid scene instance, data format validation, side effects, return values, or error behavior. This is minimal 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 a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently states the action. There is no unnecessary wording or repetition of schema details.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description is too sparse to fully inform an agent. It does not explain the structure or requirements of port_instance_data, the prerequisite of an existing scene instance, or the outcome of the creation. A more descriptive explanation is needed for this creation 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?

The schema already provides full descriptions for both parameters (scene_instance_uuid and port_instance_data), covering 100% of the parameters. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond implying the scene instance is the container. With this high schema coverage, the baseline of 3 applies.

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 a specific resource 'port instance' with the context 'within a scene instance,' clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like mmar_create_port or mmar_create_class_instance. It is unambiguous what action is performed and where.

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 implies the tool is used to create a port instance inside an existing scene instance, but it does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives (e.g., mmar_create_port) or provide any exclusions. The usage context is implied rather than directly guided.

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