ponisha_delete_portfolio

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, yet the description adds real substance: irreversibility ('can't be undone'), a human-confirmation rule, and a server-side guard where deletion is conditional on confirm_title matching. The conditional-deletion mechanism is behavior an agent could not infer from any structured field.

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 short sentences with the destructive verb front-loaded, followed by the risk warning, the safety instruction, and the parameter rule in priority order. No filler or redundancy.

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 destructive two-parameter tool with no output schema and no schema descriptions, it covers irreversibility, user confirmation, and the title guard. It leaves open what happens on a title mismatch (error versus silent no-op) and whether authentication/session is required, which would matter given the openWorldHint.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load: it explains confirm_title precisely (exact title, matching semantics, failure mode if mismatched) rather than just restating the field name. portfolio_id is left unelaborated, though its meaning is evident from the parameter name.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource ('Permanently delete one of your portfolio items'), immediately distinguishing it from ponisha_update_portfolio and ponisha_create_portfolio by the permanence qualifier. An agent knows exactly what this does without reading the 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?

Gives an explicit precondition ('Always ask the user first') and the implicit workflow requirement that the exact title must be known, which steers the agent toward ponisha_get_portfolio before calling. It does not name a sibling alternative explicitly, so it falls short of a 5.

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