weeek_manage_portfolios

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only names the operations (list/create/rename/delete) but doesn't disclose that delete is destructive, whether rename is allowed on nested portfolios, any permission or authentication requirements, or what happens on list without filters. A mutation-bearing tool with zero behavioral context.

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?

One compact sentence listing all operations plus a clarifying parenthetical. No wasted words, though it front-loads the resource relationship well. Could add helpful usage context without becoming verbose.

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?

This is a multi-operation CRUD tool with 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description is a single sentence that fails to specify per-action expectations, list-vs-mutation behaviors, or return semantics. For a tool this broad in surface area, significantly more descriptive support is needed.

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 86%, high enough that most parameters are documented in the schema itself (name, limit, offset, search, portfolio_id, parent_id). The description adds the context that portfolios are 'folders projects live in' and that parent_id nests a portfolio under another, which the schema conveys. Marginal added value beyond schema, so 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?

Clear verb+resource: 'List, create, rename or delete portfolios' with parenthetical explaining what portfolios are ('the folders projects live in'). Distinct from siblings like weeek_manage_projects and weeek_list_projects by naming the portfolio resource specifically.

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 gives a general sense that the tool handles CRUD for portfolios but provides no guidance on when to use it vs alternatives (e.g., list portfolios vs list projects), no prerequisites, and no note that this is the only portfolio-management tool among siblings. The action enum partially fills this gap but the description adds nothing.

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