v2_set_port_profile

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

Adds real behavioral value beyond the annotations: the refusal guard on inter-switch trunks and its consequence ('partitions the network'), plus the fact that dryRun returns the payload instead of sending it. Annotations only cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive; the dangerous-edge-case and dry-run semantics are purely from the description. The '[READ-ONLY MODE]' phrasing is slightly ambiguous next to readOnlyHint=false, but it clearly describes the dryRun path rather than the tool itself.

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?

Three tight clauses with no filler, and the highest-risk information (the network-partitioning trunk guard) is front-loaded after the core action. The heavy em-dash/bracket punctuation makes it slightly dense, but nothing is wasted.

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 mutating, 6-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the risky behavior well but leaves parameter meanings and any return shape unaddressed. An agent can decide whether to call it, but cannot confidently fill in the arguments without guessing.

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% across 6 parameters, so the description must carry the load and it largely does not: switchMac, port, profileName and siteId are entirely unexplained. Only 'force' gets meaning (trunk override), and dryRun is only implied by the bracketed read-only note.

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 and resource ('Bind a switch port to a VLAN port profile') and adds intent ('the real fix for "every port permits every VLAN"'), which separates it conceptually from generic port tools like v2_set_port and v2_set_port_pvid. It does not name any sibling explicitly, so it stops short of the 5 bar.

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?

Gives clear context for when this is the right action (fixing permissive VLAN behavior) and a precise condition for the dangerous case ('Refuses to change an inter-switch trunk unless force:true'). It never names an alternative sibling (e.g. v2_set_port_pvid) for the case where a different tool is appropriate.

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