Update Portfolio

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description need not repeat these. It adds useful behavioral context by stating that only supplied fields are changed and that the updated portfolio object is returned. No contradictions with annotations exist, but it does not disclose potential side effects beyond the update itself.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the action. Every phrase adds value: what can be updated, the partial-update guidance, and the return value. No wasted words or redundant details.

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 tool is simple and well-covered by annotations and schema. The description specifies the return value, partial-update behavior, and the accepted fields. No output schema exists, but the return value is described. Permissions or error cases are not mentioned, but the combination of annotations and description provides sufficient context for basic 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 coverage is 100%, so all parameters have descriptions. The description adds a marginal nuance ('Only supply the fields to change') that reinforces optionality, but it does not provide additional semantics beyond what the schema already offers. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 tool updates a portfolio's name, color, or public visibility, with a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling update tools (e.g., update_project, update_task) by explicitly naming the portfolio as the target.

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 instruction 'Only supply the fields to change' provides a clear usage guideline for partial updates. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus other update tools, nor does it state any exclusions or alternatives, leaving some ambiguity for an agent selecting among many sibling update functions.

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