Help Center: update a new portal

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

With annotations already declaring the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true), the description adds genuine context: the auth mechanism (User API key header), the exact mutation verb (PATCH), the extra_body escape hatch, and the notable language/digit handling behavior. It does not, however, note that unspecified fields are left unchanged or any permissions needed beyond the API key.

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 definition is front-loaded with the verb+resource and organized into endpoint, auth, body-field, and encoding segments. The body-field list duplicates the schema, but overall the text is compact and each line carries usable information.

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 an 11-parameter mutation tool with nested objects (config, extra_body) and no output schema, the description supplies auth, endpoint, field coverage, and the extra_body mechanism, which is sufficient to call it correctly. The only omission is whether untouched fields are preserved, which is a minor gap given no return schema exists.

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 schema already documents all 11 parameters, establishing a baseline of 3. The description restates the body-field list and adds a meaningful encoding note (Persian/Arabic-Indic digits and unchanged text), but this is marginal added meaning over what the schema fields already convey.

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 states a specific verb and resource ("Update a help center portal") and ties it to a concrete endpoint (PATCH /api/v1/accounts/{account_id}/portals), so an agent can tell it apart from gapify_add_portal or gapify_list_portals. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings, so it is clear but not sibling-differentiating.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not guidance and no routing to alternatives such as gapify_add_portal for creation. Usage is only implied by the verb "Update" and the PATCH endpoint, leaving the agent to infer when this tool is appropriate.

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