Update Console_server_port

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

Annotations already indicate mutation (readOnlyHint=false), idempotency (idempotentHint=true), and destructiveness (destructiveHint=true). The description adds the critical PATCH semantics detail that only provided fields change, which is consistent with annotations. No contradictions.

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 and well-structured. It front-loads the purpose, immediately explains the idempotent update behavior, and then succinctly notes the output format options. Every sentence adds value with no wasted words.

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 the core update behavior and output format, but with 10 parameters and no output schema, more detail would be helpful. For example, it does not explain the effect of 'mark_connected' or the format of 'custom_fields'. The description is adequate but not comprehensive for the complexity.

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 only 40% (4 of 10 parameters have descriptions). The description does not elaborate on the meaning of parameters like 'name', 'type', 'label', 'speed', 'description', or 'mark_connected'. With low schema coverage, the description should compensate but does not, leaving the agent without sufficient guidance for parameter usage.

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 action ('Update an existing console_server_port'), the resource, and the semantics ('PATCH semantics — only provided fields are changed'). It unambiguously identifies the tool's purpose and distinguishes it from sibling tools like create or delete.

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 concrete usage steps: supply numeric 'id' and only fields to change. It also explains that omitted fields remain unchanged, which is helpful. It does not explicitly mention when not to use or compare to alternatives, but the context and sibling tool names provide sufficient differentiation.

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