Swagger: Resolve Organization Portal

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

The description discloses a non-obvious side effect: 'If the organization has no portal yet, a new portal is created automatically.' This adds meaningful behavior beyond the annotations, which only indicate idempotency and non-read-only semantics, and clarifies the operational impact.

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 key purpose and return fields are front-loaded, and the auto-creation behavior and usage guidance follow logically. The 'Parameters' section repeats schema information, but the overall structure is clear and the description remains focused.

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 tool with a single required parameter and an output schema, the description covers the purpose, returned data, side effect, and recommended usage context. It does not mention error cases or permissions, but those are not essential for this straightforward resolution operation.

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 already fully documents organizationId with type, format, pattern, and description, so the description adds little beyond restating the parameter. At 100% schema description coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description does not enrich the parameter semantics further.

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 states a specific action ('Resolve portal details') on a clear resource ('a Swagger organization') and enumerates the returned fields, so an agent can understand the scope. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like swagger_get_portal or swagger_list_portals, but 'in a single step' and 'all portal context' convey differentiation.

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?

It explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool: 'to obtain all portal context needed for subsequent portal and product operations.' However, it does not state when not to use it or name alternative tools such as swagger_get_portal or swagger_list_portals.

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