set_port_mode

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full weight. It discloses the use of read-before-write and the default dry_run=True, and explains the return format. While it does not cover permissions or rate limits, these are not expected for this tool. The behavioral details are sufficient for safe invocation.

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 well-structured: a one-line summary, followed by important notes (supported modes, read-before-write, dry run default, alternative tools), then a clear args listing with each parameter's description and conditions. No extraneous text; every sentence adds value.

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?

Despite 9 parameters and conditional requirements, the description covers all aspects: purpose, usage notes, parameter semantics (including which modes require which parameters), and return structure. The presence of an output schema is noted, but the description already explains the return format. This is a complete and self-contained documentation.

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. It provides thorough explanations for each parameter, including conditional requirements for specific modes (e.g., cycle_on_seconds required for CYCLE, schedule_start/end required for SCHEDULE). This fully clarifies the meaning and constraints beyond the raw 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 opens with a clear verb and resource: 'Switch a port to a specific automation mode.' It lists all 8 modes and explicitly distinguishes from dedicated tools like set_vpd_automation, set_temperature_automation, and set_humidity_automation, 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 states when to use this tool and recommends alternative specialized tools for VPD, AUTO modes. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it (e.g., for simple on/off actions, where set_port_on/set_port_off may be more appropriate). This is a minor gap in comprehensive guidance.

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