Set port cycle

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

Annotations already cover the key safety traits: readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds the on/off repeating behavior, which is useful, but it does not disclose side effects of switching a port into Cycle mode or mention the activation/authorization requirements. There is no contradiction with 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 one focused sentence that front-loads the core action and then clarifies the cycle semantics. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the schema.

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 rich schema (100% coverage, clear parameter descriptions, and an output schema) and annotations, the description is adequate for a competent agent to call the tool correctly. The main missing element is explicit usage context relative to sibling cycle/timer/schedule tools, but that gap is partially mitigated by the tool name and schema.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explicitly connecting on_minutes and off_minutes into a repeating cycle, a relationship the individual parameter descriptions don't state. It doesn't discuss activate or user_authorized, but those parameters are already well-described in the 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 states a specific action, 'Configure Cycle mode', and explains the behavior: 'repeat on_minutes on, then off_minutes off.' This makes the tool's function clear and distinct from generic port controls, though it doesn't explicitly contrast it with siblings like set_port_timer or set_port_schedule.

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 is given for when to use this tool versus alternatives such as set_port_mode, set_port_timer, or set_port_schedule. The description defines what the tool does but supplies no context for selection, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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