create_portal_widget

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description is not required to restate that. The addition of the WRITE_ENABLED requirement provides operational context beyond the annotations, explaining a critical condition for the tool to function. No contradiction found.

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, around 14 words, with the purpose front-loaded and a parenthetical permission note. Every word earns its place; no fluff or repetition.

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 creation tool with 8 parameters and a fully described schema, the description covers the purpose and a key prerequisite. Annotations handle the safety profile. It does not explain return values or widget lifecycle, but the absence of an output schema and presence of complete parameter documentation make the description sufficiently complete.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for all 8 parameters, so the schema already fully documents parameter semantics. The description's mention of 'template, CSS, and scripts' is a high-level summary but does not add meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 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 states 'Create a new Service Portal widget' with a specific verb and resource, and lists the key content types (template, CSS, scripts). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling read/update tools like list_portal_widgets, get_portal_widget, and update_portal_widget.

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 provides a prerequisite ('requires WRITE_ENABLED=true') which is a useful usage condition. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_portal_widget, leaving usage to be implied by the verb 'create'.

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