portfolio_delete

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the destructive action ('delete') but does not disclose whether deletion is permanent, irreversible, or cascades to associated data (e.g., wallets, holdings). No side effects, confirmation behavior, or failure modes are mentioned.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant words. It communicates the core function in the most efficient way possible, earning a high score for conciseness.

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?

Even though the tool is simple with only one parameter, the description omits critical operational details for a destructive action: whether the deletion is permanent, what the response/confirmation looks like, and whether there are any side effects. There is no output schema or annotations to compensate for these 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?

The schema provides 100% coverage: the only parameter, portfolioId, is described as 'Portfolio ID to delete'. The description adds no extra parameter semantics, but since the schema already documents this fully, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Delete a portfolio' clearly states the action and resource, making its purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from sibling operations like portfolio_create or portfolio_remove_wallet by using 'delete' rather than 'create' or 'remove'. However, it is minimal and does not elaborate on what 'portfolio' deletion entails (e.g., deleting the entire portfolio vs. just removing a wallet).

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like portfolio_remove_wallet or portfolio_clear_all. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or context hints. The intended usage is only implied by the verb 'delete'.

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