Create a portal to collect files

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the write/non-destructive profile is covered. The description adds only that portals target external users and can be configured in various ways; it omits side effects such as whether recipients are notified on creation or what identity/permissions are required.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by a capability overview and the required-fields note. Efficient, with no filler, though the middle feature list is somewhat marketing-flavored rather than task-critical.

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 33-parameter creation tool with nested objects and no output schema, the description covers the essentials (what it creates, required vs optional fields) but says nothing about the returned identifier an agent would need for follow-up calls. Adequate but with real gaps.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 33 parameters, including nested objects and conditional dependencies. The description's feature list (access codes, download passwords, file type restrictions, branding, integrations) loosely maps to parameters but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create a new portal') plus the scope ('for collecting files from external users'). It is easily distinguished from the read/update/delete portal siblings, though it never names them explicitly.

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?

No guidance on when to create a portal versus using update_portal on an existing one, no prerequisites, and no mention of permissions or limits. The only conditional info is about optional parameters, which is parameter rather than usage guidance.

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