batchSetSwitchPortName

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

The destructiveHint annotation already flags this as a destructive operation, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond that. It does not disclose that existing port names will be overwritten, how partial failures are handled, or whether the batch is atomic. With the annotation covering the safety profile, some credit is given, but the description itself contributes no additional transparency.

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 two concise sentences with no filler. The core operation and constraints are front-loaded, and the entry structure is stated efficiently. Every sentence contributes to understanding the tool.

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 relatively simple batch mutation tool, the description plus schema and destructiveHint cover the essential invocation details: target switch, list of port/name pairs, and mutation safety. However, it lacks guidance on overwrite semantics, success/failure behavior, and when the optional siteId is needed, so it is adequate but not 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does mention that each entry contains a port number and a name (with length constraint), which partially maps to portNameList. However, it completely omits switchMac and siteId, and the only added semantic beyond the schema is the phrase 'port number'. This is insufficient for full 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 states a specific verb ('set names'), the resource ('switch ports'), and the batching scope ('multiple switch ports'). The 'Batch' qualifier distinguishes it from the singular sibling setSwitchPortName, while 'names' separates it from batch operations on profiles, status, and PoE.

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 context is implied: use this tool when you need to set names on multiple ports at once. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use it or point to the singular alternative setSwitchPortName for single-port changes, so the guidance remains implicit rather than explicit.

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