Create Portfolio

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

The annotations already indicate this is a mutating, non-idempotent operation (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false). The description adds only the return behavior (returns the created portfolio object with gid and name) and domain context, but does not disclose additional side effects, permissions, or workspace requirement details beyond what the schema provides. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

The description is three short sentences: the first front-loads the core purpose, the second gives useful domain context, and the third states the return value. Every sentence earns its place with no repetition or fluff.

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 create tool with full schema coverage and one required parameter, the description is largely complete. It explains what the tool does, what portfolios are for, and what is returned. It does not explicitly mention the workspace fallback or permission requirements, but those are partially covered by schema and annotations, so the description is sufficient for typical use.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema for parameters, only mentioning the response contains gid and name, which is optional return information rather than parameter guidance.

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 clearly states the action and resource ('Create a new portfolio in a workspace') and distinguishes it from sibling portfolio tools like get_portfolio, update_portfolio, and delete_portfolio by using the specific verb 'create'. The context about grouping projects adds further clarification.

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 this tool is for creating a portfolio, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or provide exclusions. There is no mention of update/delete as alternatives or any conditions under which this tool should not be used.

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