Help Center: Add a new portal

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds real value beyond them: the auth mechanism (User API key in `api-access-token`), the exact endpoint, and the extra_body merge behavior. It stops short of disclosing error/duplicate-slug behavior, which keeps it off a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then endpoint/auth/body fields in a compact block. The enumerated body-field list is somewhat redundant given 100% schema coverage, but it is short and the extra_body and localization notes earn their space.

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 mutation tool with 11 params, one required, no output schema, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies auth, endpoint, payload shape, and a passthrough mechanism. It omits the required-parameter note and any hint of return/error behavior, so it is not fully complete but is close.

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 the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by documenting the extra_body passthrough and, notably, the localization rule that text may be Persian/other languages sent unchanged and that IDs/numbers may use Persian or Arabic-Indic digits — value the schema does not carry.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Create a help center portal in the account.' That cleanly separates it from gapify_list_portals and gapify_update_portal, though those siblings are never named explicitly, so differentiation is inferred from the verb rather than stated.

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?

Usage is implied by the verb and the API endpoint shown, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or routing to alternatives (e.g. update_portal for existing portals). The auth note and extra_body escape hatch add practical context but not selection guidance.

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