Edit Xpresso Port

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does well: it names the underlying operation (GvNode.AddPort), explains that connect wires this node's port to a peer target, notes direction auto-detection, specifies disconnect removes incoming connections, and clarifies set_value writes the port default. It omits edge behaviors like error conditions and whether connections are replaced, but core mutating behavior is disclosed.

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 compact and well-structured: an opening positioning sentence, followed by a terse action-by-action breakdown. Every sentence contributes meaning, and the prerequisite note is placed at the end without bloating the core content.

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 seven-parameter tool with nested objects and no output schema, the description covers all five actions, required parameters, the peer-node relationship, and the discovery prerequisite. It could additionally mention return values or error behavior, but it gives an agent enough to invoke the tool correctly in most cases.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds useful mapping: `port_id` is required for add, `target` is the peer selector for connect, `port` is the selector for remove/connect/disconnect/set_value, and `io` is the direction for add. It also clarifies the semantics of `connect` beyond the raw schema, which helps prevent misuse.

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 identifies this as a low-level Xpresso port primitive and enumerates five distinct operations (add, connect, disconnect, set_value, remove) with the resource and effect of each. It explicitly distinguishes itself from `apply_xpresso_graph`, so an agent can tell this tool apart from related 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 description states when to use this tool ('covers cases apply_xpresso_graph can't express') and names a prerequisite discovery step ('Use list_xpresso_nodes first'). It does not enumerate specific exclusions versus `set_graph_port` or other sibling tools, but the context is otherwise clear.

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