set_ports

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

Description does not contradict annotations (idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false). It adds behavioral context by specifying the format of the ports parameter. However, it does not disclose whether it overwrites existing ports or merges, nor does it describe side effects or return values.

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?

Very concise: one sentence plus an example. Every part is informative. No wasted words or repetitive content. Front-loaded with the core action.

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 2 parameters and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It explains the purpose and the ports format but lacks details on behavior (replacement vs. merge) and return value. The presence of sibling 'get_ports' provides some context.

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 0%, so description must compensate. It explains the 'ports' parameter semantics with an example map, adding value. But the 'circuit_id' parameter is not explained beyond the schema. The added context for one parameter is decent but not comprehensive.

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?

Description clearly states 'Store port definitions for a circuit', which is a specific verb-resource combination. It distinguishes from sibling 'get_ports' by being the setter. The example further clarifies the mapping of port names to netlist node names.

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?

Description implies usage when defining ports for a circuit, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use or when to avoid. No mention of alternatives, such as using 'get_ports' for verification. The guidance is adequate but not explicit.

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