sc_portfolio_group_update

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

The description explicitly states this is a write operation by requiring SC_MCP_ENABLE_WRITES=true, which is important for the agent to know. However, with no annotations provided, the description does not disclose other behavioral aspects such as whether the update is partial or complete replacement, what happens to fields not mentioned (e.g., portfolio_id, clear_description), or any side effects (e.g., cascading updates).

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 a single sentence followed by a critical prerequisite, which is efficient and well-structured. It front-loads the main action. Minor points: could be slightly more verbose to cover the missing parameters, but not significantly padded.

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 has 5 parameters with zero schema coverage, no annotations, and an output schema exists but is not described. The description only covers 2/5 parameters and omits explanation of clear_description, portfolio_id, and the partial-update behavior. For a write/mutation tool in a system with several sibling portfolio operations, this is insufficient for the agent to use it correctly without guessing.

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 compensate but only mentions 'name/description'. The schema has 5 parameters (name, group_id, description, portfolio_id, clear_description) with complex types (anyOf, defaults). The description does not explain the purpose of portfolio_id or clear_description, nor does it clarify that group_id is required while others are optional with defaults. This leaves significant ambiguity for the agent.

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 verb 'Update' and the resource 'portfolio group', and specifies the modifiable fields 'name/description'. It distinguishes this from siblings like sc_portfolio_group_create and sc_portfolio_group_delete, though it could explicitly name the create/delete siblings for comparison.

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 provides one essential usage prerequisite: the environment variable 'SC_MCP_ENABLE_WRITES=true' must be set. However, it does not guide on when to use this update tool versus alternatives like sc_portfolio_group_assign/unassign, nor does it mention any context-specific conditions (e.g., does the user need to be owner/admin?).

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