port_off

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

The description explicitly warns that the operation is destructive and will cause the server to lose network connectivity on that interface. This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false). It doesn't mention reversibility or confirmation requirements, but the schema already requires confirm=true, so the description's warning is sufficient.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste. The core action is front-loaded, and the critical destructive warning is placed immediately after. 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?

For a destructive action with a required confirm flag, the description covers the essential context: what the tool does and the key risk. It doesn't describe the return value, but there is no output schema and the operation is a simple toggle-like action. The missing 'use port_on to re-enable' is a minor gap.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (id, port, confirm). The description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Выключить сетевой порт сервера') and the resource (network port of a server). It also includes the internal command name (net/port_off) and explicitly distinguishes it from the sibling port_on by its destructive nature. This is a specific verb+resource with clear differentiation.

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 implies when to use this tool: when you need to disable a server's network port. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the destructive warning and the sibling port_on provide enough context. A clear 'use port_on to re-enable' would have made it a 5.

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