create_proxy_port

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action (create) and the target element, but does not mention side effects, required parent type, potential errors, or the return value. There is no indication that the parent must be a Block beyond the phrase 'on a Block', and no mention of what happens if the parent is invalid. This is a significant gap for a mutation operation.

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, grammatically correct sentence with no wasted words, so it is concise. However, it is overly terse—it lacks the substance needed to be helpful. The structure is acceptable, but the brevity results in an under-specification that harms overall quality. It could be longer without losing efficiency.

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 tool that creates a specific SysML element, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain what a ProxyPort is, what the parent_id should reference, any constraints on the name, or the expected output. Even though an output schema exists, the description itself provides no context to help an agent understand the tool's role or constraints. Given the complexity of SysML modeling and the presence of many sibling creation tools, this level of detail is inadequate.

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 for explaining the parameters. It does not explain that 'name' is the name of the new ProxyPort or that 'parent_id' is the identifier of the Block on which to create it. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema's property titles, which are minimal. An agent cannot confidently infer parameter semantics from this definition.

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 states a specific verb ('create'), resource ('SysML ProxyPort'), and context ('on a Block'). This clearly indicates the tool's function and distinguishes it from other port-related tools like create_full_port and create_flow_port, though it doesn't explicitly name those alternatives. The purpose is unambiguous and actionable.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools that create other port types (e.g., create_full_port, create_flow_port). It doesn't mention any prerequisites, constraints, or conditions under which a ProxyPort should be chosen. An agent would have to infer usage from the resource name alone, which is insufficient.

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