Port Description Update

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

Annotations already carry the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=true), and the description is consistent with them — no contradiction. However, the description adds little beyond the annotations: it doesn't state that the existing description is overwritten or that repeated calls with the same payload are safe. With annotations present, the bar is lower, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 zero filler: action, resource, and identifier method delivered in eight words. Appropriately sized for a simple 2-parameter tool with rich schema documentation.

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 100% schema coverage, presence of annotations, and an output schema signal, the description is sufficient for basic invocation. Gaps remain: no mention of overwrite semantics despite destructiveHint=true, and no warning that payload allows additionalProperties beyond 'description'. Adequate but minimal for a mutation tool.

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%: payload's exact format is documented ('{"description": "new description"}') and port_id has type and minimum constraints. The description merely echoes 'by port ID' and adds no meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('Update'), resource ('port description in LibreNMS'), and identification method ('by port ID'). The purpose is unambiguous, but it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like port_description_get or port_get — the differentiation rests on naming convention rather than description content.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions no prerequisites (e.g., the port must exist), no reference to port_description_get for read operations, and no exclusion of other port-update paths. An agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name and context.

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