set_port_config

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

With no annotations, the description discloses key behavior: protected ports are refused, disabling a link-Up port is refused, and dry_run previews current vs target. It still omits permission, persistence, and error semantics, but covers the most important safety constraints.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action and allowed values, then safety constraints and dry-run behavior. No filler.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no schema descriptions, the description covers core behavior but not all parameters or persistence and error details. Output schema exists, so return format need not be explained.

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%, so the description must compensate. It provides critical allowed values for speed and duplex and explains dry_run's effect, but leaves port, enabled, description, and flow_control without added meaning.

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, configure, and resource, port, with the main settings speed and duplex listed. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling setters like set_port_vlan_membership or set_pvid, so sibling differentiation is incomplete.

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 dry_run default and refusal conditions imply preview-then-apply usage, but the description does not say when to choose this tool over alternative port or VLAN configuration tools. It also does not mention prerequisites such as fetching status first.

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