Apply carrier-group details

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

Annotations already provide idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral context: it applies details to every TN, recomputes membership from live TNIQ, and lists possible errors. This adds value beyond the annotations.

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 concise with four sentences, each serving a purpose: action, membership source, usage sequence, and errors. No redundant or missing information. Front-loaded with the most important action.

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 the complexity (8 parameters, no output schema) and rich annotations, the description covers the main action, source of data, ordering, and error types. It does not explain optional parameter behavior or return value, but these are partially covered by schema and annotations. Overall sufficiently complete.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description lists the parameter categories but does not add additional meaning or syntax details beyond what the schema provides. No extra value added.

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 tool applies losing-carrier account details to every TN in a SPID group, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning live TNIQ details and sequencing with 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?

The description provides clear when-to-use context: get SPID groups from port_get_request and run before port_validate_request. It also clarifies that group membership is from live TNIQ, not client-supplied. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives.

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