poe_set

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the key trait that changes are non-persistent ('Does not save'), which an agent could not infer elsewhere. However, it omits equally important behavior for a power-over-Ethernet mutation: disabling PoE will drop power to attached devices, and there is no mention of permissions, error behavior, or reversibility.

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 terse sentences, with the operation and target front-loaded and the non-persistence caveat last. Nothing redundant; every clause carries information.

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 two-parameter, flat-schema tool with an output schema (so return values needn't be described), the definition is largely sufficient: it names the action, the scope, and the persistence caveat. It could be tighter on port format and on the operational impact of cutting PoE, which are the remaining gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does clarify that 'port' refers to a copper port in the 0/1..0/24 range and that the boolean controls enable vs. disable, but it leaves the exact string format for 'port' ambiguous (e.g. '0/1' vs '1') and adds nothing about invalid inputs.

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 uses a specific verb pair ('Enable or disable') with a specific resource ('PoE') and even bounds the target ('on a copper port (0/1..0/24)'), so an agent can distinguish it from port_set_admin_state or port_set_description without opening a schema. It stops short of the top score only because it doesn't explicitly contrast itself with those siblings.

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 closing note 'Does not save' implies that a separate persistence step (save_config) is required, which is useful usage context but is never stated directly. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or named alternative for port configuration tasks.

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