port_speed

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 the operation is a write and requires confirmation, which is a meaningful behavioral trait. However, it does not elaborate on what happens during confirmation, side effects, or whether changes are reversible, leaving gaps for a mutation tool.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the action and the critical confirmation note. It wastes no words, achieving high efficiency, though its brevity contributes to missing context.

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 five parameters, a write operation, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It fails to explain the confirmation flow, parameter roles, or expected effects, leaving an agent with inadequate information to call the tool correctly.

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% and the description does not mention any of the five parameters. Nothing explains the meaning of port, speed, user_code, confirm_token, or confirmation_id, leaving agents to guess their purpose and format.

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 verb 'Set' and the resource 'ethernet port speed/duplex', which precisely describes the tool's function. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like port_status or switch_* beyond the action, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

While it indicates this is a write operation requiring confirmation, it offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as port_status or switch_set. There is no context about prerequisites, when confirmation is required, or when this should be used over other port-related tools.

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