asignar_puerto_vlan

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

With no annotations provided, the description alone must disclose behavioral traits. It explains the functional behavior (assigning a port in access/trunk mode) and shows example calls. However, it does not mention side effects like modifying switch configuration, potential requirements (e.g., switch/port must exist), or reversibility. Since this is an operation that likely alters network state, the lack of such disclosure is a gap, but the description is not misleading.

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 concise and well-structured. The first line states the core purpose, followed by bullet-like explanations of the two modes, and then explicit examples. It front-loads the essential information and avoids unnecessary words, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema (which likely documents return values), the description is nearly complete. It covers the main functionality, modes, and parameter usage. It could mention that this is a configuration-writing operation or prerequisites, but the examples and mode explanations suffice for an agent to call it correctly in most scenarios.

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 schema provides no per-parameter descriptions (coverage 0%), so the description must compensate. It does so through examples: it shows that 'puerto' takes values like 'FastEthernet0/1' and 'vlan_id' as an integer, and explains 'modo' with its two allowed values. The description adds meaning beyond the schema names by clarifying the role of each parameter in context, though it doesn't explicitly list them one by one.

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 tool's purpose: 'Asigna un puerto de un switch a una VLAN en modo access o trunk.' It specifies the verb (asignar), resource (puerto de switch), and context (VLAN). It also distinguishes between the two modes (access vs trunk) and provides concrete examples, making it unmistakable from sibling tools like configurar_vlan or configurar_trunk.

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 provides explicit usage guidance for the two modes: access for a single end device (PC, phone, server) and trunk for inter-switch or switch-router links. It gives examples for each mode, which directly informs when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, but the mode explanations imply appropriate contexts.

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