Save Portal Navigation

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

The annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains ETag/If-Match concurrency handling with automatic retry on conflict. This is exactly the kind of behavioral nuance the annotations don't convey. Minor gap: it doesn't describe what happens on success (return value) or whether dryRun has side effects.

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?

Two sentences, dense with information. Every sentence earns its place: the first defines the operation and data shape, the second explains concurrency semantics. Zero waste, front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 single-document navigation save with clear entry shape, the description covers the key points: concurrent write handling (ETag/If-Match with retry), entry structure, and whole-document semantics. Missing pieces: return value format, dryRun behavior, and how portalRef is resolved. But given the tool's moderate complexity and clear sibling context (save_page_layout for pages), it's reasonably 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the param meaning. The description explains the navigation entry structure ({ pageSlug, label, icon? }) which overlaps with the schema. However, 'portalRef' is unexplained in the description (it's intuitively the portal reference) and 'dryRun' is never mentioned in the description at all despite being a schema parameter. The description compensates partially but not fully.

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 'Replace' with the resource 'portal navigation tree', and explicitly notes it's a whole-document write. It defines the entry structure ({ pageSlug, label, icon? }). While there's a sibling tool 'kilango_save_page_layout' and 'kilango_get_portal_navigation', the description's emphasis on whole-document replacement and the specific entry schema distinguishes it from page-level layout saving.

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 implies this is for replacing an entire navigation tree (whole-document write) rather than incremental updates, which is useful context given there are related tools like save_page_layout and update_page. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or name alternative tools for partial updates, so some context is implied rather than explicit.

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