update_port_profile

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the full burden, and it does so excellently. It discloses the shared-profile blast radius, states that one write affects every port on every switch using the profile, names the underlying API endpoint, and warns about the destructive scope. This goes well beyond the tool name and schema.

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 longer than average, but the length is largely justified by the destructive potential of the operation. The safety warning is front-loaded, and parameter explanations are compact. There is minor redundancy in repeating that changes apply to every port using the profile, but it reinforces a critical constraint.

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 complex mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers the operation's true scope, the destructive consequences, required parameters, and safe invocation steps. The only minor omission is expected return behavior, but that is not necessary to prevent misuse or to call the tool correctly.

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%, so the description must explain the parameters itself. It does: host accepts a console name, ID, or composite MAC:numericId; site accepts a name or ID; profile_id is the port profile ID; payload is a freeform object with example fields like speed, native_networkconf_id, op_mode, and poe_mode. This is substantial added meaning beyond the raw 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 states the precise action ('update a switch port profile by ID') and immediately distinguishes it from a per-port or per-device writer by explaining it edits a shared Ethernet Port Profile. This makes its scope unambiguous and differentiates it from sibling read tools like get_port_profile and list_port_profiles.

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 explicit when-not-to-use guidance: it must never be used as a per-device/per-port STP-priority or PoE-mode writer, and it notes that no confirmed per-port config route exists via this API. It also instructs the agent to read profile assignments and confirm blast radius before writing. Naming the specific sibling read tool would have made it slightly stronger.

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