rotate_port

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It correctly discloses that the tool changes the IP and preserves credentials/settings. However, it omits important behavioral details such as whether the action causes downtime, requires the port to be active, or affects existing sessions. Some transparency is present but incomplete.

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 extremely concise, consisting of just two sentences that immediately convey the core action and its effect. There is no unnecessary information, and the key points are front-loaded.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context about what the tool does and its effect. It explains the outcome (IP change, preservation of credentials) adequately. Minor gaps like missing usage guidelines prevent a perfect score.

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?

The only parameter (portId) is fully described in the schema (coverage 100%), and the description adds no additional meaning or constraints beyond what the schema already provides. Thus, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the action ('rotate a port to a new modem/device') and the resource ('port'). It explains what changes (IP address) and what stays the same (credentials and settings), distinguishing it from sibling tools like reconfigur_port or update_port_credentials.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks context about prerequisites, scenarios, or conditions that would help an agent decide to choose this tool over others like reconfigure_port.

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