portchannelsAddPortChannels

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 port channels (implying a write/mutation operation) but doesn't mention required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 (two sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. The second sentence provides a syntax example, which is useful but could be more informative. There's no wasted text, though it could be more structured with clearer separation of purpose and usage.

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 this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error conditions, or behavioral constraints. The 100% schema coverage helps with parameters, but overall completeness is poor for a tool that modifies infrastructure.

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 fully documents both parameters (fabricId and portChannels). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond a generic syntax example, which doesn't provide additional meaning beyond what's in the schema. 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: 'Add one or more port channels.' It specifies the verb ('Add') and resource ('port channels'), and mentions it can handle multiple items. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'portchannelsUpdatePortChannel' or 'portchannelsDeletePortChannel' beyond the basic action.

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. It includes a syntax example ('pass the required fields as direct arguments') but doesn't mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or how it relates to sibling tools like 'portchannelsUpdatePortChannel' or 'portchannelsDeletePortChannel'.

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