Submit a port-in request

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses that 'Requires step-up MFA' and details the 409 CONFLICT response structure including error.details.reason and groups. This provides critical operational context not captured in 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 relatively concise but packs dense information including gates, error details, and post-submission tracking. It could be slightly more compact, but it remains well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose. No wasted sentences.

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 tool's complexity (multiple failure modes, MFA requirement, post-submission steps) and the absence of an output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: prerequisites, error handling, and follow-up actions. No gaps remain for effective use.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents the 'id' parameter. The description adds minor value by specifying the id's source (port_list_requests or port_create_request), but this is not essential. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description does not significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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 'Submit the port to NPAC.' as the core action, which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by referencing prerequisite steps like port_generate_loa and port_validate_request, making its role in the workflow explicit.

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 explicitly lists two gating conditions (LOA presence and project submittability) and directs the agent to specific tools for handling each gate. It also recommends tracking tools (port_get_progress, port_get_statistics) after submission, effectively guiding when and when not to use this tool.

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