portfolioDelete

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral context on its own. It only restates the delete operation and does not mention irreversibility, effects on associated domains, permission requirements, or response behavior. The generic API reference link does not provide specific behavioral details in the description.

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 extremely concise, containing no redundant wording, and the core action is front-loaded. It loses points only because it is so minimal that it omits useful context, but as a concise definition it is well-formed.

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?

This is a destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema, yet the description only states the basic action. It lacks details about what happens to domains associated with the portfolio, whether the deletion is reversible, or what errors or confirmations the API returns. The generic link to an API reference is not enough.

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%, and the only parameter, 'portfolio', is described as 'Portfolio name' in the schema. The tool description adds no additional meaning or constraints beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 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 action ('Delete') and the resource ('a portfolio'), which unambiguously identifies the tool's purpose. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, but the resource name is distinct enough among portfolio-related siblings.

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 phrase 'Delete a portfolio' implies the tool should be used when a portfolio needs to be removed. However, it provides no explicit guidance about when not to use it, prerequisites, or alternatives such as portfolioList or portfolioDomainAssociate.

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