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

Adds substantial behavioral detail beyond the annotations: display names are not checked and null clears them, the home site must be DNS/file-proved, and a site can be named only when its owner allows it. These are meaningful constraints for a non-destructive 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?

Front-loaded with the core action and contains little waste, but the first sentence is dense and its parenthetical clauses make it slower to parse than ideal. The final sentence usefully anchors the return behavior.

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 5-parameter optional-field mutation tool, it covers constraints, permissions, null handling, and return behavior by reference to mttr_portfolio. It does not clarify whether multiple fields may be changed in one call or what happens with no parameters, leaving a minor gap.

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 100%, so the schema already defines all five parameters. The description still adds meaning beyond the schema, especially around null clearing, unchecked names, DNS/file proof for home, and owner permission for naming a site.

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?

Clearly states a specific mutation verb and resource: it changes the person's portfolio and enumerates the aspects that can be changed (publish/hide, name, home site, display mode). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the read-oriented sibling mttr_portfolio.

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?

Implies when to use it by contrasting with mttr_portfolio: use this to change the portfolio, while mttr_portfolio returns it. It does not spell out exclusions or alternatives such as mttr_portfolio_veto, but the intended usage is clear.

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