replace_x402_port

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses that the operation deletes the old port and creates a new one on a different device, and includes a session limit (max 3). This gives adequate transparency about the destructive nature and constraints.

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 concise sentences that front-load the core purpose and key constraints. Every sentence adds value without redundancy or fluff.

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?

No output schema is provided, and the description does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., new port details). While it covers the operation well, it lacks information about the response, leaving the agent to guess. With no output schema, this gap reduces completeness.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context about the overall operation but does not provide additional parameter-specific details beyond what the schema already provides. No improvement over baseline.

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 uses specific verbs ('replace', 'delete', 'create') and resources ('offline/broken proxy port', 'new port on a different device'). It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like delete_port (only deletes), create_port (only creates), and reconfigure_port (modifies settings) by combining deletion and creation in one operation.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: when a port is offline/broken. Also provides constraints: free, max 3 replacements per session. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or list alternatives, though the context implies it's for replacement scenarios only.

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