Auto-fix port-in errors

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

Annotations are all false, providing no hints. Description implies mutation but lacks details on side effects, idempotency, or safety of retrying. Only errors are listed, not behavioral outcomes.

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 plus error list, front-loaded with action, no fluff. Every sentence adds value.

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?

With no output schema, description should mention return value or confirmation. It covers purpose and follow-up but lacks details on prerequisites, synchronous/asynchronous behavior, and what the tool returns.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. Description adds minor context (error_group_id from port_get_error_groups) but largely restates schema parameter descriptions.

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?

Clearly states 'Apply TNIQ auto-fixes to the project' with optional scoping to error group or TN subset, distinguishing it from sibling tools like port_get_error_groups and port_resubmit_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 mentions optional scoping and recommends follow-up tools (port_revalidate_tns or port_resubmit_request), but does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to alternatives.

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