Swagger: Resolve Organization Portal

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

The description claims the tool creates a new portal if none exists, which is a write side effect. However, the annotations specify readOnlyHint=true, indicating no writes. This is a direct contradiction, severely undermining transparency.

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, well-structured, and front-loaded with the main purpose. It uses a brief paragraph with bullet-point details of return fields and includes usage guidance without extraneous information.

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 no output schema, the description provides a complete explanation of what is returned (portal ID, subdomain, customDomain, product list). It also covers the side effect of automatic portal creation. However, it omits potential error conditions or prerequisites.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description restates the parameter information from the schema ('Swagger organization UUID - the organization to resolve portal details for') without adding significant new semantics.

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 resolves portal details for a Swagger organization, specifying exactly what it returns (portal ID, subdomain, customDomain, list of products) and that it creates a portal if none exists. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like swagger_get_portal and swagger_create_portal by being a single-step resolution.

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 explicitly advises to use this tool 'to obtain all portal context needed for subsequent portal and product operations.' It implies when to use it (for obtaining complete portal context) but does not explicitly state when not to use it. The automatic creation behavior is mentioned, providing guidance on its convenience.

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