create_contribution

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure burden. It only defines what the resource is, but does not mention side effects, required permissions, whether the portal is immediately active, or what happens to the underlying collection. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the action ('Create a new contribution portal') and efficiently adds a parenthetical definition. No wasted words.

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 there are 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the full behavior, prerequisites, or return value. While the resource concept is defined, the tool's complete usage context is missing.

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 only 17% (only asset_group_id has a description). The description helps clarify that 'name' is the portal name and that the portal is tied to an asset group, but it does not explain parameters like enabled, message, require_login, or allow_anonymous. The description insufficiently compensates for the schema gaps.

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 new contribution portal and elaborates on what that is (a named upload link tied to a collection/lightbox/folder). This distinguishes it from sibling create tools like create_share_link or create_asset_group_invite.

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 implies usage when a contribution portal is needed, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., create_share_link, create_asset_group_invite). There are no exclusions or prerequisite notes.

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