Create TCP Mapping

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

Annotations already indicate a non-readonly, non-idempotent mutation, and the description adds the optional restriction context. However, it does not disclose side effects such as port binding behavior, duplicate mapping results, or what the response contains.

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 front-loaded sentence communicates the core action and the key optional behavior with no filler. Every word earns its place.

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?

The definition is minimally viable: parameter semantics are covered by the schema and safety traits by annotations, but there is no guidance on expected output, side effects, or when this tool should be preferred over list/delete mapping operations.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters. The description's mention of IP/CIDR restrictions is useful but largely redundant with the whitelistedIps schema description.

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 uses a specific verb ('Expose') with a clear resource ('a Cube TCP port on the host') and mentions the optional IP/CIDR restriction. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling list_tcp_mappings and delete_tcp_mapping tools.

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 the tool is for exposing a port, but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or contrasts with sibling tools. It is adequate but does not actively route the agent toward or away from alternatives.

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