Create a port-in draft

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

Description discloses it is a create (mutation), lists specific errors, and explains it creates a TNIQ project and WARP mirror row. With annotations lacking any hints, this adds meaningful behavioral context. However, it does not mention idempotency, rate limits, or side effects beyond creation.

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?

Description is two sentences with a list of errors. Front-loaded with core purpose, followed by lifecycle and prerequisite. No unnecessary words, 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?

The description covers purpose, lifecycle, prerequisite, and errors. However, since there is no output schema, the description fails to mention the return value (e.g., the created draft request), which is a notable gap for an agent invoking this 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so both parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description does not add any additional parameter-specific information beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline score 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 clearly states it creates a draft port-in request, using specific verb 'Create' and resource 'draft port-in request', with internal details (TNIQ project + WARP mirror row). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like port_add_tns or port_submit_request by positioning as step 1 of the lifecycle.

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?

Provides explicit step-by-step lifecycle (create draft → port_add_tns → ... → port_activate) and a prerequisite (Run port_preview first). Also lists possible errors. This gives clear guidance on when to use this tool and in what sequence.

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