update_port_forward

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not disclose whether the update is a merge or a full replacement, whether it disrupts traffic, what permissions are required, or how errors are handled. The phrase 'fields to update' hints at partial update semantics, but it is not explicitly framed as a behavioral trait.

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 compact and front-loaded: a single purpose sentence followed by a concise parameter list. Every line adds necessary information, with no filler or redundancy. The structure makes it easy to scan.

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?

With an output schema present and four parameters all explained, the description covers most operational essentials. It does not explicitly state that the payload represents a partial update (PATCH-style) or whether host/site are required for scoping the rule globally, but these are inferable from the parameter names and sibling tools. Minor gaps prevent a perfect score.

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%, and the description fully compensates by explaining every parameter. Host is defined as 'console name, ID, or composite ID (MAC:numericId format),' site as 'site name or ID,' forward_id as the rule ID, and payload as 'fields to update.' This gives the agent concrete, actionable meaning beyond the bare schema types.

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 'Update a port forwarding rule by ID,' which clearly states the action (update), the resource (port forwarding rule), and the identifier method (by ID). This differentiates it from sibling tools like create_port_forward, delete_port_forward, and list_port_forwards, all of which are distinct operations.

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 implies usage through the word 'update' and the presence of a forward_id parameter, indicating that an existing rule is modified. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus creating or deleting a rule, nor any mention of prerequisites or exclusions.

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