set_pvid

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and delivers meaningful context: protected ports 1 and 4 are refused, and dry_run=true previews without applying. This usefully signals a mutating tool with a safe preview path, though auth/permission and success semantics are not covered.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with zero filler. The core action leads, with constraints and the preview flag following in order of importance.

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 simple mutating setter with an output schema (so return values needn't be described), the description covers the key behavioral facts an agent needs. Only minor gaps remain, such as permission requirements and post-success behavior.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It clearly explains dry_run's default preview behavior, and 'port'/'pvid' are fairly self-evident, but it adds no detail on PVID value format/range or port numbering, leaving partial compensation for the coverage gap.

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+resource ('Set a port's PVID') that an agent can distinguish from siblings like set_port_vlan_membership or set_port_config. The scope is unambiguous, though it doesn't explicitly name how it relates to those siblings.

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 constraints (protected ports refused) and dry_run semantics, but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as set_port_vlan_membership. It assumes the agent already knows it needs to change a PVID.

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