create_port

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it exposes externally, applies on next deploy, and requires confirmation for privileged ports. However, it lacks information about side effects like overwriting existing mappings or required permissions for the host.

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 paragraph with two sentences, front-loading the main purpose. It is concise and includes essential notes without unnecessary detail.

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 no output schema, the description covers the tool's purpose, parameters, and important warnings. It could mention success/failure indication or impact on existing port mappings, but overall it is sufficiently complete for a simple creation tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context for the confirm parameter regarding privileged ports and implies protocol default (though not explicitly stated). It does not significantly extend beyond the schema's descriptions.

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 publishes a port mapping for a service, exposing it externally without proxy/domain. It specifies use cases (TCP/UDP for databases, games) and that it applies on next deploy, distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_ports or get_exposed_ports.

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 explains when to use (for raw TCP/UDP) and includes a warning about privileged ports requiring the confirm field. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or suggest alternatives among siblings, which could be improved.

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