Update a portal

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it never mentions that this is an irreversible mutating operation, never explains partial-update semantics (whether omitted fields are preserved or reset), and never warns about the required-field coupling (e.g. expiry required when expiry_enabled=true).

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scoped by the second. No filler or repetition, though the trailing 'and more' is vague rather than informative.

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 34-parameter destructive mutation with nested objects and no output schema, the description is far too thin. It omits partial-update behavior, the required-field interlock for expiry/access_code/download_password/terms_of_service, and which changes are destructive or hard to reverse.

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 all 34 parameters are already documented in the schema, and the baseline is 3. The description adds only a high-level categorization of the setting groups and no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already states.

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 ('Update') and resource ('an existing portal's configuration') and enumerates the categories of settings it touches. It does not distinguish itself from siblings such as create_portal or delete_portal, but the CRUD intent is unambiguous.

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?

'Use this to modify portal settings like access controls, branding, file restrictions, and more' implies the when but names no prerequisites, no when-not, and no alternative tool. An agent must infer that this only applies to already-existing portals.

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