port_description_update

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

While annotations (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true) indicate state modification and safe repetition, the description adds no additional behavioral context such as error conditions, idempotency guarantees, or side effects. It merely restates the mutable nature of the operation already implied by annotations.

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 that immediately conveys the core action. No extraneous words or information.

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 simplicity (2 parameters, clear schema, and existing output schema), the description provides sufficient context for understanding its purpose. However, the lack of usage guidelines slightly reduces completeness.

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 100%, with clear parameter descriptions in the schema itself. The description adds no further semantics beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Update'), the resource ('port description'), and the context ('in LibreNMS by port ID'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like port_description_get, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., port_description_get), nor does it mention prerequisites or situations to avoid. This leaves the agent without critical decision-making context.

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