change_phj_destination

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states the basic mutation ('Repoint') but does not disclose if the previous destination is lost, if authentication is required, or any side effects. The description is insufficient 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?

A single sentence with no redundant words. All information is front-loaded and each word contributes to the purpose.

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 no annotations and a mutation context, the description is too brief. It lacks details on return values, error conditions, prerequisites (e.g., rule must exist), and the concept of porthijack. The presence of an output schema is not leveraged because no description of what it returns.

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 0%, so description must compensate. It maps ip_dst and proxy_port as a pair ('new ip_dst:proxy_port'), adding context beyond the schema titles. However, service_id is not explained (e.g., how to obtain it). The description adds partial value but not full clarity.

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 clearly states the action 'Repoint' and the resource 'existing porthijack rule', with specific destination fields 'ip_dst:proxy_port'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_phj_service (create) or delete_phj_service (delete).

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as add_phj_service or update_nfregex_service. The description does not mention prerequisites, typical use cases, or conditions where this tool should be avoided.

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