Set container port

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

Annotations already establish readOnly=false, destructive=false, and idempotent=true. The description adds a small amount of context by saying the port is one the app 'listens on', but it does not explain any side effects such as whether the app needs to restart or whether the change takes effect immediately.

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 well-structured sentence with no filler. The usage trigger is front-loaded, and every word contributes to understanding.

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 simple setter with three flat parameters and no output schema, this is minimally adequate. An agent can likely infer project/service/containerPort from the names and context, but the 0% parameter schema coverage means the description alone leaves some ambiguity about what each argument represents.

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 clarifies that 'containerPort' is the port the app listens on, but it provides no explanation of 'project' or 'service'. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description does not fully bridge the gap left by the undocumented 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 uses a specific verb ('change') and identifies the exact resource ('the container port a Lizard app listens on'). It clearly differentiates from the sibling tool service_get_port, which is about reading rather than setting the port.

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 opens with 'Use this when the user wants to change...' which is a clear trigger condition. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the purpose is specific enough that an agent can infer when it applies.

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