Set container port

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. However, the description adds nothing about the consequences of a port change (traffic/routing breakage, need for redeploy, restart requirements), which is exactly the context a destructive mutation should surface.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is efficient, though its brevity comes at the cost of the behavioral detail noted above.

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?

With no output schema, no annotation explanation needed, but 0% parameter documentation and an unconstrained integer port leave an agent guessing about valid inputs and post-call effects. Insufficient for a destructive, three-required-parameter mutation.

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 for three required parameters and does not. Critically, the schema constrains containerPort only as any integer (negatives allowed) with no valid port range, and the description does not clarify valid values or what project/service identifiers look like.

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 specific verb+resource: change the container port a Lizard app listens on. It is clearly distinguishable from read-only siblings like service_get_port, though it never mentions that a project and service must be identified to target the app.

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?

"Use this when the user wants to change the container port" gives a usage trigger, but there are no exclusions or alternatives — nothing distinguishes it from service_set, service_get_port, or sandbox_expose_port, which all touch port configuration.

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