allow_network_on_port_profile

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses that this is a live PUT to a shared port profile, explains the side effect on every switch port using the profile, states that it refuses with an error dict when confirm is False, and describes the internal read-modify-write behavior before the controller call.

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?

Every sentence adds necessary information, and the most important action is front-loaded. Parameter explanations are grouped clearly, and the remediation context is stated compactly without repetition or filler.

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 tool with no annotations, the description covers prerequisites, ID sourcing, confirmation semantics, side effects, and the high-level return shape. The existence of an output schema reduces the need to detail the return structure further, so nothing essential is missing.

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%, but the description fully compensates by explaining every parameter: host formats, site name/ID, profile_id source, network_id source, and the confirm requirement. This is exactly the guidance an agent needs to resolve otherwise opaque parameter names.

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 opens with a specific verb-resource pair ('Atomically allow (un-exclude) a VLAN network on a switch port profile') and clearly distinguishes this from the inverse operation by using 'un-exclude'. It leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does or which entity it affects.

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 gives a concrete trigger condition: use it on every profile named in a `create_network` `D12_AUTO_EXCLUSION` warning. It does not explicitly contrast this with the sibling `exclude_network_on_port_profile`, but the inverse semantics are implied by 'un-exclude' and the focused remediation use case provides clear context.

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