port_set

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Set port adapter mapping' without revealing side effects, whether existing mappings are overwritten, reversibility, required permissions, or the response format. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 a single, short sentence with zero fluff, which is concise. However, it is under-specified for a tool with four parameters and a nested config object. It lacks structural elements like context or examples, so it barely earns a passing score.

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?

Given four parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far from complete. It does not explain return values, prerequisites, or the operational effect of setting a mapping. The schema provides parameter listings but not the behavioral or contextual glue needed for correct invocation.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters with brief descriptions and examples. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 applies because the schema handles the heavy lifting.

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+resource structure: 'Set port adapter mapping' clearly indicates a write operation targeting port-adapter associations. It distinguishes from sibling 'port_get' by the contrasting 'set' vs 'get' action, and the resource 'port adapter mapping' is more specific than just 'port'. However, it lacks detail on what a 'port adapter mapping' is or what setting it accomplishes, leaving some ambiguity for an agent unfamiliar with the domain.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool, prerequisites, or alternatives. The sibling port_get implies a read counterpart, but the description does not mention that relationship or any exclusions. The context is only implied by the tool name and schema, not explained.

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