add_port_forwarding

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds real behavior beyond that – replace=true overwrites an existing rule on the same port, and the operation is 'Two-phase' – but the two-phase requirement is left dangling with no explanation of the confirm step, which is the highest-stakes detail for an agent.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and an example, with no filler. The trailing fragment 'Two-phase.' and the abrupt parameter notes make the second half read as terse notes rather than a coherent instruction.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the mutation safety profile is covered by annotations. For a 9-parameter write tool with a two-phase confirm flow, though, the description omits the confirm/expected_etag mechanics an agent needs to complete the operation 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% across 9 parameters, so the description must carry the load. It clarifies external_ports range syntax, internal_port defaulting to the external port, and replace, but leaves name, confirm, enabled, protocol, internal_ip and expected_etag completely undefined – including confirm, which is central to the unexplained two-phase flow.

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 (forward external ports to a LAN host) and even gives accepted input shapes such as ["443"] and ["1000-2000"]. It does not name or contrast with siblings like list_port_forwarding or delete_port_forwarding, though the add/delete/list distinction is inferable from the name.

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 replace=true clause does give one genuine decision rule (overwrite an existing rule rather than be refused), which is useful conditional guidance. However, there is no advice on when to call list_port_forwarding first, and the critical 'Two-phase' workflow is asserted without saying when the second call is required.

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