Add Port Mapping

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden and delivers none of it. It does not state that this is a mutating operation, whether the mapping takes effect immediately, whether it can conflict with existing mappings, or what permissions are required.

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?

It is short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness; there is effectively no content to front-load. Brevity here penalizes rather than helps the agent.

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?

An 8-parameter mutation tool with zero annotation coverage and zero schema descriptions needs substantial prose to be callable correctly; an output schema exists so return values need not be covered, but everything else is missing.

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% across 8 parameters (name, comment, enabled, protocol, interface, internal_ip, internal_port, external_port), and the description documents none of them. Critical ambiguities — protocol values, port format, ip/port relationships — are left entirely unexplained.

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?

"添加端口映射" translates directly to the tool name/title "Add Port Mapping", so it is essentially a tautological restatement rather than an independent statement of purpose. It conveys no scope, no target object details, and does not distinguish this from siblings such as add_port_forwarding_rule, list_port_mappings, or delete_port_mapping.

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?

There is no guidance whatsoever on when to use this tool versus the many related port/forwarding/NAT tools in the sibling list. No prerequisites, no when-not-to-use, no alternatives are named.

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