zuckerbot_create_portfolio

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It indicates the tool creates a portfolio, implying mutation, and notes that portfolio launch is temporarily disabled. However, it does not disclose side effects, permissions needed, or other behavioral traits such as whether the portfolio is immediately stored or requires further action.

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 concise, consisting of two sentences. The first sentence captures the core action and variants, while the second adds key behavioral context (budget splitting and temporary disablement). It front-loads the primary purpose and avoids unnecessary verbiage.

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?

Given 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description explains the portfolio concept and parameters but omits return value and preconditions like whether a business context must be set. It is somewhat complete for creating a portfolio but lacks details that would help an agent fully anticipate the tool's behavior and integration.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds context about budget splitting across tiers and use of templates, which maps to parameters like template_id, tiers, and total_daily_budget_cents. However, it does not provide detailed explanations for each parameter beyond what the schema already offers.

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's purpose: creating a planning and monitoring-only multi-tier audience portfolio for a business. It distinguishes this from sibling portfolio tools like launch, update, or get by specifying that it creates a new portfolio from a template or custom tier array.

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 explains what the tool does but does not explicitly tell when to use it vs. alternative portfolio tools (e.g., update_portfolio, rebalance_portfolio). It mentions the use of templates and custom tiers, providing some context, but no when-not-to-use guidance or prerequisites.

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