eda_sys_dialog_create_design_portal

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. It does reveal that the object encapsulates all communication (sending messages and receiving events), and that it returns an IDesignPortal object. However, it does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether it opens a dialog), prerequisites (like requiring a specific window), or the object's lifecycle. This is a moderate level of transparency for a factory-like tool.

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 concise and structured with a signature, remarks, and returns section. It front-loads the purpose and includes necessary context about usage with VirtualRender. However, the use of technical jargon and the omission of parameter details slightly reduce clarity, but it is still efficiently written.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should explain the returned IDesignPortal object in detail for an agent to use it effectively. It only says it's a communication object without describing its methods or how to interact with it. Additionally, it does not explain the 'args' parameter structure or the 'windowId' semantics beyond the schema. For a tool that creates a complex object, this level of detail is insufficient.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with both 'args' and 'windowId' documented. The tool description itself does not add any parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides; it focuses on the return object. Since the schema already covers parameters, the description's lack of additional parameter detail is acceptable, resulting in a baseline score of 3.

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 tool creates a communication portal for componentized popup windows, using a specific verb ('create') and resource ('design portal'). It is distinct from sibling dialog tools like show_confirmation_message or show_input_dialog, which display messages rather than creating a communication object. However, the term 'design portal' is somewhat technical and may not immediately convey its purpose to an agent without domain knowledge.

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 mentions that the returned object is used with VirtualRender/virtual machine components, giving some context on how to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like eda_sys_dialog_insert_script_to_dialog, nor does it provide any exclusions or prerequisites. An agent would not know whether to pick this over other dialog tools without further information.

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