Set port schedule

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

Annotations already establish non-read-only, non-destructive, idempotent behavior. The description adds genuinely useful behavior: controller-local time, midnight-crossing windows, and the 65535 API value for disabled edges. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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?

Two sentences with no filler; the core action is front-loaded. Every clause contributes information: schedule mode, start/end, local time, midnight behavior, and null semantics.

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 6-parameter mutation with an output schema and thorough schema descriptions, the description covers the non-obvious schedule behavior. Return values are handled by the output schema. The only minor gap is that the 'activate' parameter behavior is left to the schema, which is acceptable.

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 semantic value for start and end by explaining local time, midnight crossing, and null-to-65535 mapping. It does not need to repeat the schema's per-parameter explanations.

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 ('Configure') and resource ('Schedule mode') and clearly defines the on/off semantics. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like set_port_timer or set_port_mode, so it stops short of a top score.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling schedule/timer/cycle tools. It does not mention alternatives, exclusions, or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer the intended context.

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