v2_set_ports_bulk

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

Annotations already give the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower, yet the description still adds real value: the trunk guard, per-port write-and-verify behavior, the blast-radius concept ('dead' = zero blast radius), and the read-only/dry-run payload behavior. Strong added context beyond structured fields.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, followed by selector semantics and the operational rationale. Mostly earns its sentences, though the '30-second convergence outage into no outage' framing is slightly promotional for a tool description.

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 17-param mutation tool with no output schema and near-zero schema coverage, the description covers selection, the STP use case, verification, and dry-run behavior, but leaves many behavioral flags undocumented. Adequate for the headline workflow but incomplete for the full parameter surface.

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?

With 17 parameters and only 6% schema coverage, the description must carry most of the parameter burden. It explains the selector enum values ('access'=non-trunk, 'dead'=link down non-trunk, 'all') and the edgePort workflow, but leaves the many boolean flags (stp, force, disable, bpduProtect, loopProtect, rootProtect, portIsolation, loopbackDetect) and storm-rate params unexplained.

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 verb and resource ('Apply one change to many ports at once') and immediately differentiates from the singular sibling by referencing 'the same trunk guard as v2_set_port'. An agent can distinguish this bulk-write tool from v2_set_port without opening a schema.

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?

It explains the two selection modes (explicit ports vs. the 'access'/'dead'/'all' selectors) and gives a concrete recommended workflow: use with edgePort:true before enabling STP. It stops short of stating when to prefer the singular v2_set_port, so external choice is left implicit.

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