update_nat_port_forward

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds 'by ID' as a targeting detail but does not disclose partial update semantics or the role of apply_immediately. It does not contradict the annotations, but it adds little beyond them.

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 a single, focused sentence of 7 words: 'Update an existing NAT port forwarding rule by ID'. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, contains no redundancy, and every word earns its place.

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?

The tool has 12 parameters and a mutation operation, but the description is extremely terse. It lacks context on when to use it versus alternatives and does not mention that only specified fields are updated or that apply_immediately controls whether changes take effect immediately. The rich schema and annotations compensate for parameter and safety details, but the description remains minimally viable.

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 description itself contains no parameter information, but the input schema has descriptive text for all 12 parameters, including crucial context like port_forward_id being an array index from search_nat_port_forwards. With 100% schema coverage, the description need not add more.

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 a specific verb ('Update') and identifies the resource ('NAT port forwarding rule') with an identifier ('by ID'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_nat_port_forward and delete_nat_port_forward through the word 'existing' and the targeting mechanism.

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 phrase 'existing' implies this tool is for modifying already-created rules, but the description provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., create, delete, or apply_nat_changes). It does not mention prerequisites such as obtaining the port_forward_id from search_nat_port_forwards, though the schema hints at this.

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