nodesSetPorts

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is a configuration update tool via REST API and explicitly states it's a 'SAFE OPERATION' that doesn't execute code or commands, which helps clarify safety. However, it lacks details on permissions needed, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what happens to existing settings not mentioned.

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 appropriately concise with three sentences: purpose statement, safety/behavioral note, and basic usage instruction. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and safety information. However, the second sentence could be more streamlined, and it lacks structural elements like bullet points for clarity.

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 tool's complexity (network configuration update with nested parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and safety but misses critical context like error handling, response format, idempotency, or dependencies on other tools (e.g., fabrics or nodes operations). For a mutation tool with rich parameter schema, more completeness is needed.

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 the three parameters (fabricId, nodeId, ports). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'pass the resource ID and the fields to update as arguments,' which aligns with the schema but doesn't provide additional syntax, format, or semantic context. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 tool's purpose: 'Update the list of ports' and specifies it configures network fabric port settings (speed, MTU, VLAN, etc.) via REST API. It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning it doesn't execute code or commands on the system, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other port-related tools like nodesUpdatePort or nodesResetPort.

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 minimal usage guidance: 'To use this tool, pass the resource ID and the fields to update as arguments.' It doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like nodesUpdatePort or nodesResetPort, nor does it mention prerequisites, constraints, or typical scenarios for updating port lists.

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