setSwitchPortStatus

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

The destructiveHint annotation already flags this as a destructive operation, and the description adds the useful scoping detail that it affects exactly one port. However, it does not disclose potential side effects such as dropping connected clients, interrupting connectivity, or whether the change is reversible.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It communicates the core action and status encoding efficiently, and every word earns its place.

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 tool is relatively simple and the schema gives useful constraints for port and status, but the description omits guidance on the optional siteId parameter, how to determine valid switchMac/port values, and what response or acknowledgement to expect. With no output schema, an agent gets enough to make a basic call but not full contextual confidence.

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%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented switchMac, port, and siteId parameters. It only clarifies the status parameter's 0/1 values, which already appear in the schema, and provides no additional meaning for the other parameters.

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 action ('Enable or disable') on a specific resource ('a single switch port') and clarifies the status encoding. The word 'single' distinguishes it from the sibling batchSetSwitchPortStatus tool.

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 phrase 'a single switch port' implicitly signals that this tool is for per-port toggling rather than batch operations, but the description never explicitly says when to use this tool over siblings like batchSetSwitchPortStatus, setSwitchPortPoe, or updateSwitchPort. No preconditions or exclusions are provided.

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