remove_portal_selection

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it does disclose a key non-obvious behavior: if the removed pair was active, another remaining selection becomes active. It does not mention failure modes or permissions, but for this simple state mutation the critical behavioral nuance is covered.

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 focused sentence with a conditional follow-up that adds essential behavior. Every word earns its place, and the main action is front-loaded.

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 simple two-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is nearly complete: it states the operation, the object, and the active-selection fallback behavior. It does not explicitly state prerequisites such as 'the pair must already be selected,' but that is strongly implied by the phrase 'from the selected set.'

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 compensate. It adds the useful semantic that portal_id and project_id together form a pair within the selected set, but it does not clarify where these IDs come from or any formatting constraints. The parameter names and titles are self-explanatory enough to make the description minimally viable.

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 uses a specific verb ('Remove') with a precise resource ('one portal/project pair from the selected set'), making the operation unambiguous. It also implicitly differentiates from siblings like reset_selection by emphasizing removal of a single pair rather than clearing the entire selection.

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 gives clear context: use this when you need to remove one portal/project pair from the current selected set. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, such as 'for removing all, use reset_selection,' but the scope of the operation is clearly implied.

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