portmaptime_set

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly states that this is a write operation and that it requires confirmation, which is useful. However, it does not explain the confirmation workflow, side effects on existing sessions, failure behavior, or what happens if confirmation parameters are omitted.

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 compact and front-loaded, stating the action immediately and then mapping protocol codes in a terse parenthetical. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 confirmation-gated write operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is materially incomplete. It does not describe how confirmation is obtained or supplied, what the response or success/failure indicators look like, or what side effects may occur when the timeout is changed.

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. It explains the proto enum letters, but seconds is only vaguely implied by 'timeout', and user_code, confirm_token, and confirmation_id are not explained at all. For a tool with five parameters, this leaves most parameter semantics unresolved.

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 names a specific action and resource ('Set port mapping session timeout') and decodes the protocol letters (t/u/i/w/s), so the operation is unambiguous. It doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings like portmaptime_list or portmaptime_flush, but the verb makes the intent clear enough.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as portmaptime_list, portmaptime_flush, or show_pmtime. The '(write — requires confirmation)' note hints at a precondition but does not explain when this tool should be selected or what conditions must hold before calling it.

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