mngt_httpport

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

The description discloses that this is a write operation and that it 'requires confirmation', which is a key behavioral trait. However, with no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to explain what the confirmation flow entails, what parameters like acknowledge, confirm_token, and confirmation_id do, or what side effects occur after setting the port. The statement is too vague to prepare an agent for the confirmation process.

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 short sentence, which is superficially concise, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately sized. For a tool with five parameters and a confirmation workflow, this is too terse. The sentence conveys the purpose but omits necessary operational details, so the brevity is not an asset—it is a deficiency.

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 (5 parameters, confirmation required, no output schema), the description is drastically incomplete. It does not explain the confirmation process, the role of each parameter, or what response the agent should expect. An agent would not know how to correctly execute a write operation that requires confirmation, making the definition inadequate for reliable invocation.

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 by explaining the parameters. It provides zero information about any of the five parameters. The port parameter's range is in the schema but not described in text, and the confirmation-related parameters (user_code, acknowledge, confirm_token, confirmation_id) are completely unexplained. The description adds no semantic value beyond the raw schema.

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 clear action and resource: 'Set HTTP port'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like mngt_httpsport by specifying 'HTTP' rather than HTTPS, and the 'write' qualifier separates it from the many read-only show_* tools. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or elaborate on the management context, so it's clear but not maximally differentiated.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that this changes the management HTTP port or that it should be used instead of mngt_httpsport or other port-setting tools. The usage context is only implied by the name and the word 'write'. No exclusions or conditions are provided.

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