asana_create_portfolio

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

Annotations already indicate non-read-only, non-destructive, and open-world behavior, so the description bears a lower burden. However, it adds no extra behavioral context such as required permissions, side effects, or response format. The description neither contradicts nor meaningfully supplements the annotations, so a mid-range score is appropriate.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the core verb and resource. The parenthetical adds contextual value without unnecessary verbosity, earning a strong score for efficiency.

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?

Given the tool creates a portfolio, the description does not address return values, required fields beyond the schema, or any additional context like workspace specificity. The parenthetical purpose hint is helpful but insufficient for a complete understanding; the missing parameter explanations and lack of usage guidance leave notable 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 0%, and the description provides no explanation of what the 'name', 'color', or 'workspace' parameters mean or how they should be formatted. The description entirely fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation, leaving the agent without any guidance on parameter usage.

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 action ('Create a portfolio') and adds a parenthetical explaining its purpose ('group projects for North-Star-style tracking'). It distinguishes itself enough from sibling tools like asana_create_project by naming the 'portfolio' resource, though it does not explicitly contrast with related portfolio tools.

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 is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only explains what the tool does, not the scenarios or prerequisites for creating a portfolio, nor does it mention sibling tools like asana_add_to_portfolio or asana_create_project.

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