nodesAddManagementPorts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool adds management ports, implying a write/mutation operation, but fails to mention critical aspects like required permissions, whether the operation is idempotent, potential side effects, or error conditions. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to use it safely and effectively.

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 brief and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. The second sentence provides a syntax example, which is helpful but could be considered slightly redundant if the schema is well-understood. Overall, it's efficient with minimal waste.

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?

Given the complexity of adding management ports (a mutation operation with nested parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It lacks information on behavioral traits, error handling, return values, and prerequisites, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use the tool correctly in real-world scenarios.

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 fully documents all parameters (fabricId, nodeId, ports) and their nested properties. The description adds no meaningful semantic context beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining relationships between parameters or typical usage patterns. However, with high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Add') and resource ('one or more management port'), making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'nodesUpdateManagementPort' or 'nodesGetManagementPorts', which handle updates and reads of the same resource type, so it misses full sibling 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'nodesUpdateManagementPort' for modifications or 'nodesGetManagementPorts' for reads. It includes a syntax example for passing arguments, but this is parameter usage advice rather than contextual guidance on tool selection.

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