batchSetSwitchPortStatus

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

Annotations already provide destructiveHint=true, so the description need not restate destructiveness. It adds the specific state change (enable/disable) but does not disclose side effects such as immediate loss of connectivity on disabled ports, idempotency, or behavior when applied to already-matching ports. Given the annotation covers the core trait, the description adds minimal but acceptable context.

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 short sentences with no filler; the action and resource are front-loaded and the status mapping is stated crisply. Every word earns its keep.

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 destructive batch mutation with no output schema, the description gives the core semantics but omits guidance on when to choose it over singular alternatives, the role of optional siteId, and expected return or error behavior. Adequate for a straightforward operation but leaves several gaps an agent might encounter.

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 25%, covering just 'status'. The description repeats '0=off, 1=on' but adds no meaning for switchMac, portList, or siteId. With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate by explaining how these parameters interact or what format they should take.

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 ('enable or disable'), a clear resource ('switch ports'), and a batch scope ('multiple'), which distinguishes it from singular setSwitchPortStatus and sibling batch operations. It also encodes the status mapping (0=off, 1=on) directly, leaving no ambiguity about the operation's purpose.

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 word 'Batch' implies this should be used when multiple ports need status changes, but the description does not explicitly mention when to prefer it over singular setSwitchPortStatus or other batch tools like batchSetSwitchPortPoe/Name/Profile. No exclusions or alternatives are named, so usage guidance is only implied.

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