create_portal_widget

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

Annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-idempotent. The description adds value by specifying the required permission 'WRITE_ENABLED=true', which is not in annotations. It does not mention behavior on duplicate names or what happens if the widget already exists, but overall adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations.

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 that is completely free of fluff. It front-loads the main purpose and includes a crucial prerequisite in parentheses. Every word earns its place.

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?

With 8 parameters, a write operation, no output schema, and annotations providing basic hints, the description is somewhat minimal. It does not explain the return value (likely the created widget's sys_id) or failure scenarios. For a create tool, the behavior is standard, but more detail on expected outcome or error conditions would improve completeness.

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% with descriptions for all 8 parameters. The description mentions 'template, CSS, and scripts' which maps to some parameters but does not add meaning beyond the schema. Baseline is 3 due to high schema coverage, and the description does not significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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 'Create' and the resource 'Service Portal widget', and lists key components (template, CSS, scripts). It distinguishes from sibling tools like update_portal_widget and create_portal_page by the specific resource type and action. The inclusion of a prerequisite (requires WRITE_ENABLED=true) adds clarity.

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 mentions a required permission (WRITE_ENABLED=true), providing a usage condition. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs. alternatives (e.g., update_portal_widget) or when not to use it. The context of 'Create' implies new widget creation, but could be more direct about exclusions.

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