Swagger: Resolve Organization Portal

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

The description discloses a key side effect: 'If the organization has no portal yet, a new portal is created automatically.' This exceeds what annotations provide (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) by specifying exactly when mutation occurs. The returned fields are also listed, adding behavioral clarity.

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, with an efficient first sentence stating purpose, followed by a clear bullet list of returned fields. It includes a 'Toolset' tag and parameter details. Minor redundancy exists (parameter description repeated), but overall it is well-structured and free of 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 the simple single-parameter tool and the presence of an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It explains the tool's behavior, expected output, and how to use it in subsequent operations. No major gaps are present, though it could mention any prerequisites or error conditions.

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% for the single parameter organizationId. The description repeats the schema's description without adding new semantic information. It accurately describes the parameter but adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, 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 tool's purpose: to resolve portal details for a Swagger organization. It specifies the returned fields (portal ID, subdomain, customDomain, products) and explicitly contrasts with sibling tools by noting it can create a portal if none exists. The verb 'resolve' combined with the resource 'organization portal' is specific and distinguishes this tool from swagger_get_portal and swagger_list_portals.

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 advises using this tool to obtain 'all portal context needed for subsequent portal and product operations,' which provides clear usage guidance. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives, but the context is sufficient for correct selection.

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