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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds nothing on top. It does not say whether omitted fields are left unchanged or cleared (critical given destructiveHint=true on a 10-param mutation), whether portal_slug is the target while slug renames the portal, or that changes are non-idempotent.

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?

It is short and front-loaded, but the first sentence is pure redundancy with the title and the second largely duplicates the schema's field list. One sentence would have carried the same information.

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 10-parameter mutation with a nested config object, no output schema, and destructiveHint=true, the description omits the partial-update semantics and required-parameter behavior entirely. Its field enumeration is incomplete (no archived, page_title, homepage_link) and adds little to what the structured fields already provide.

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 every parameter is already documented, and the baseline is 3. The description loosely names a subset of fields (name, slug, header, colour, custom domain, locales) but adds no semantics beyond the schema — notably it stays silent on archived, page_title, and homepage_link, and on the required portal_slug parameter.

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 second sentence gives a specific verb and resource ('Update a help center portal') plus an enumerated set of mutable attributes, so an agent knows exactly what the tool operates on. It does not distinguish itself from siblings such as add_new_portal_to_account, delete_portal, or list_portals, and the opening 'Update a portal.' merely restates the name/title.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is present. With three portal siblings (add_new_portal_to_account, delete_portal, list_portals) available, the description never says which one to pick for creating vs. deleting vs. listing, nor what prerequisites (portal_slug) are needed before calling.

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