Set private port security groups

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds substantial operational context: explicit networking:read or networking:manage permissions, backend ownership and 2FA enforcement, the fact that an accepted operation is pending rather than proof of connectivity, and a detailed polling protocol using in_progress and reason_code. It also explains transport-uncertainty recovery and warns against automatic retries, which is exactly the behavioral disclosure needed for a mutation tool.

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 front-loaded with the core action and then proceeds through prerequisites, operation semantics, and recovery guidance in a logical order. It is long, but the complexity of polling and idempotency warrants most of the detail. A few sentences, especially around polling semantics, could be tightened without losing meaning.

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?

Given a 7-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: required permissions, preconditions, the exact replacement semantics, operation lifecycle, polling with reason_code interpretation, and idempotency-key handling under uncertainty. It leaves no significant gap for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 57%, and the description compensates by explaining that group_ids is a complete replacement list, that an empty list selects the network default, and that at most seven groups are allowed. It also clarifies that policy and port generations must be used separately, adding meaning to expected_generation and expected_port_generation, which lack schema descriptions. The remaining parameters are either covered by the schema or reinforced by the idempotency discussion.

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?

States a precise verb and resource: "Replace the port's complete customer-group list." It immediately clarifies scope by noting that an empty list selects the network default and that at most seven customer groups fit, distinguishing port-level group assignment from network-level defaults. An agent can tell exactly what this tool mutates without opening the schema.

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?

Provides clear context for use: replace the port's group list, use an empty list to reset to the network default, and read current capabilities and owned resource state before making changes. It also instructs obtaining approval for the exact change. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools such as update_network_security_group or set_network_default_security_policy, so the agent must infer when this tool is preferable to siblings.

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