nodesUpdatePort

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It clearly discloses this is a configuration update operation (not code execution), specifies it's a REST API call, and includes a safety disclaimer ('[SAFE OPERATION]'). However, it doesn't mention potential side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or what happens when updating read-only fields (which the schema shows exist).

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 extremely concise and well-structured: three sentences that each serve a distinct purpose (action statement, safety/implementation context, usage instruction). No wasted words, front-loaded with the core purpose, and appropriately sized for a tool with extensive schema documentation.

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 complex mutation tool with 30 parameters, nested objects, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimal. While concise, it doesn't adequately address the complexity - it lacks information about return values, error conditions, side effects, or how to handle the many read-only fields shown in the schema. The safety statement helps but doesn't fully compensate for the missing context.

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 already documents all 30 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema - it mentions passing 'resource ID and the fields to update' but doesn't provide additional context about parameter relationships, constraints, or examples. The baseline of 3 is appropriate given the comprehensive schema coverage.

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 specific action ('Update a specific port') and resource ('network fabric port settings'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like nodesResetPort or nodesSetPorts. It provides concrete examples of what gets updated (speed, MTU, VLAN, etc.) and specifies the implementation method (REST API).

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 implies usage context by mentioning it's for configuring network fabric port settings, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like nodesResetPort or nodesSetPorts. It provides basic usage instructions ('pass the resource ID and the fields to update') but lacks guidance on prerequisites, constraints, or comparison with sibling tools.

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