service_update_port

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

The description discloses the permission requirement, which is an important behavioral trait, but with no annotations provided, it carries the full burden. It omits other behavioral details such as response format, validation behavior, or reversibility, leaving significant transparency gaps.

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 two short, front-loaded sentences with no wasted words. Every piece of information (action, target, permission) earns its place, making it highly efficient.

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?

The tool is simple with two clearly described parameters and no output schema, so the core action and permission note provide adequate context. However, it lacks clarification on return behavior and does not distinguish itself from the similar admin_update_port, leaving room for improvement.

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?

Both parameters (service_id and port) have descriptions in the input schema, providing 100% coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 clearly states the action ('Update port') and the target ('for a service'), making the purpose specific. It distinguishes itself from service_update_host and service_update_account by naming the port field, though it does not explicitly contrast with the similar admin_update_port sibling.

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 only a permission prerequisite ('Requires blue team edit permissions') and no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like admin_update_port or other service_update_* tools. No exclusions or when-not-to-use conditions are mentioned.

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