Update Portal

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds the slug-immutability constraint, which is useful. However, with no output schema and no annotation-heavy safety profile, the description should disclose more: what happens to unmodified fields, whether the update is partial or full replacement, auth requirements, and behavior of dryRun. 'Update' implies mutation but consequences are unexplained.

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, front-loaded with the action and mutable fields, no filler. It is appropriately compact. Minor deduction for not using the space to cover the dryRun parameter or kind value constraints.

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?

Update operations are typically stateful and consequential. With no output schema, no annotations detailing side effects (only flags), and 0% param coverage, the description should provide more: what defines a successful update, whether it's a PATCH-style partial update, and how dryRun behaves. The slug immutability note is good but insufficient for a mutation tool of moderate complexity.

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%, meaning the description is the only source of parameter meaning. It names name/kind/defaultPersonaId in prose, but adds no detail on the 'kind' values allowed, what portalRef refers to (ID vs name vs reference string), or what dryRun does. The dryRun parameter is entirely undocumented in both schema and description, and its presence is significant for an update tool.

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 (Update) and resource (portal), and lists the specific mutable fields (name / kind / defaultPersonaId). It distinguishes from siblings like delete or create by explicit action. However, it doesn't differentiate from other update tools (update_page, update_widget) beyond the resource name, which the title already implies.

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 lists what can be updated and notes the immutability of slug (a useful exclusion). However, it provides no guidance on when to use this vs alternatives, no mention of dryRun semantics for testing, and no context about portal prerequisites (e.g., must exist, must be in a certain state).

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