port_on

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and the description's 'Enable' is consistent with them. Beyond that it adds nothing behavioral — no note that toggling a port can disrupt network connectivity, no mention of the confirm gate's purpose, no side-effect disclosure. With annotations covering only the safety flag, more context was warranted.

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?

A single short, front-loaded sentence with no padding, which is appropriate for a simple toggle. It loses a point only because the redundant '(net/port_on)' parenthetical occupies space without informing 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?

The operation is simple and the schema and annotations cover parameters and safety, but the description omits the operational context an agent needs — relationship to port_off, where the port string comes from, and disruption risk. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 id, port, and confirm parameters are fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (Enable) and resource (server network port), which is clear enough to distinguish it from read tools like get_network_status. However, it does not name or contrast the obvious sibling port_off, and the parenthetical '(net/port_on)' merely restates the tool name rather than adding scope information.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of the complementary port_off tool, and no note that the port argument should come from get_network_status (that hint only lives in the schema). The agent gets no routing context.

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