Add TNs to a port-in request

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

Annotations are all false, so no special constraints needed. Description discloses that it 'normalises' and 'uploads' TNs, and lists error types. Could add more detail on idempotency or side effects, but adequate.

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?

Very concise: two sentences plus error list. Action is front-loaded. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 2-parameter tool with no output schema, description covers purpose, lifecycle placement, error types, and parameter context. Complete given simplicity.

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 already covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. Description adds context: 'draft port request' for id, 'free-form' for tns, and lifecycle references that enhance meaning beyond 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?

Description uses specific verb 'Normalise' and resource 'TN list' and 'upload' to port request's TNIQ project. Distinguishes by specifying lifecycle step 2, after port_create_request and before port_set_group_details / port_validate_request.

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 states it is Step 2 in the port-in lifecycle, after port_create_request and before port_set_group_details / port_validate_request. Lists possible errors, providing clear usage context.

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