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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: a rate limit on slug changes (3 per 30 days), a paid-plan requirement for most changes, and the exception that unpublishing always works. Clearing behavior via empty string partially covers the destructiveHint=true risk, though it doesn't warn about slug-change breaking existing links.

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?

Four tight sentences, each carrying a distinct rule (what's editable, clearing, rate limit, plan/exception). Front-loaded with the action and fields, trailing sentences add constraints and nothing is repeated.

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?

Output schema and rich annotations cover return shape and safety profile, and the description supplies the operational constraints an agent needs (limits, plan gate). Minor gap: no note on what happens to an existing slug's links when it changes.

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 already 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds the cross-cutting semantic that omitted fields are left unchanged and that slug is governed by create_portfolio's rules. That is meaning the schema does not state.

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?

Names the resource (portfolio) and the exact mutable surface: display_name, tagline, website_url, slug, and publish state. An agent can distinguish this from create_portfolio, update_portfolio_item, and delete_portfolio without opening any schema.

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?

Explains the mutation semantics clearly ('omit fields to leave them', empty string clears) and flags the paid-plan gate and the unpublish exception, which is real routing guidance. It stops short of naming a sibling alternative (e.g. use delete_portfolio to remove, or update_portfolio_item for items), so it is not a 5.

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