mmar_update_port

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It does reveal the key behavioral trait that a complete desired state must be sent (indicating a PUT-like overwrite), but it does not mention prerequisites, error handling, or the nature of the response. This is informative but not rich.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and every word contributes. There is no fluff 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?

For a simple tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but not fully complete. It explains the core behavior but omits error conditions or any note about the requirement that the port must exist. Given its simplicity, it is minimally viable but lacks depth.

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 descriptions for both parameters. The description adds meaningful value by clarifying that port_data must contain the complete desired state, not just changes, which is a semantic nuance not explicit in the schema.

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 the action 'Update an existing port' with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from create/get operations. The added instruction 'Send the complete desired state of the port' further differentiates it from partial update tools, making its purpose 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 provides clear context that this tool is for updating an existing port, and the phrase 'Send the complete desired state' gives explicit guidance on how to use it (full replacement rather than partial patch). It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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