dealdesk.portfolio_evaluate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state that the operation is side-effect free, which is a useful safety trait, but it omits auth requirements, expected output shape, error behavior, and whether evaluation reads only the current portfolio state or can validate against a specific revision. One useful trait is not enough for a tool with a nested configuration object and no output schema.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise, though the phrase 'against the Portfolio' is somewhat opaque and the sentence could be sharpened with a brief outcome clause.

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 a nested, undocumented configuration object, no output schema, no annotations, and four parameters, the description is materially incomplete. It does not explain what evaluation produces, what the configuration must contain, or how the result should be interpreted. A caller would need to inspect schemas or experiment to use this tool correctly.

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 description coverage is only 50%, with projectId and revisionId documented in the schema while configuration and locale are not. The description adds no parameter-level meaning at all, so it fails to compensate for the undocumented nested configuration object or the locale parameter. An agent gets no help from the description beyond what the partial schema already provides.

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 verb (Evaluate) and resource (a CPQ configuration against the Portfolio), so the general purpose is clear. It also flags the operation as side-effect free, helping distinguish it from mutation-oriented siblings like create_quote or patch_card. However, it does not explain what 'evaluate' actually checks or returns, leaving the exact outcome ambiguous.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as portfolio_summary, create_quote_from_configuration, or update_quote_from_configuration. The parenthetical 'side-effect free' implies a safe dry-run use case, but the description does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or decision criteria. This falls short of even implied usage guidance.

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