setSwitchPortPoe

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

The destructiveHint annotation already signals that this is a destructive operation. The description adds the on/off semantics but does not disclose consequences like loss of PoE power, reboot of connected devices, or reversibility. With the annotation covering the safety profile, this is adequate but not rich.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that earns its place, with zero filler. It states the action, scope, and value mapping compactly.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and only 25% parameter coverage, the description is minimal. It defines poeMode values and single-port scope, but does not explain switchMac/port/siteId semantics, mention the batch alternative, or describe expected behavior beyond the annotation.

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%, and the description only clarifies poeMode values ('1=on, 0=off'), which the schema already documents identically. It provides no additional meaning for switchMac, port, or siteId, which remain purely name-inferred despite low coverage.

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 and resource: 'Enable or disable PoE on a single switch port.' This clearly distinguishes it from the batch variant (batchSetSwitchPortPoe) by the word 'single', and from other per-port tools like setSwitchPortStatus by naming PoE explicitly.

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 implies per-port usage with 'single switch port', but it never names alternatives or states when not to use this tool. Sibling batchSetSwitchPortPoe exists for bulk operations, yet no routing guidance is provided, leaving usage context to inference.

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