create_bd_port

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the XDC/board-constraint naming requirement and that supplying vlnv silently switches to an interface-port creation path. It omits error behavior (name collisions, invalid VLNV), whether a block design must be open, and whether the port is externalized to the wrapper.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the mode branching, then the constraint caveat. Minimal waste; no filler or restatement of the name.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the two creation modes and the naming constraint but leaves out prerequisites, side effects (wrapper externalization), and failure modes. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a little framing by grouping from/to as the vector form and vlnv as the interface form, but it does not resolve the schema's confusing from/to (MSB/LSB) labeling, which is exactly where extra description value would help.

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 ('Create a top-level port on the current block design') and describes two distinct modes: scalar/vector via from/to, and interface ports when vlnv is given. It distinguishes the two behaviors but does not differentiate from siblings like connect_bd_net or get_ports.

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?

Usage is implied by the phrase 'on the current block design' and the vlnv branching, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (an open block design), and no naming of alternatives such as add_ip_to_bd or connect_bd_net.

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