Create portfolio

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the creation action without mentioning idempotency, side effects (e.g., does it overwrite an existing portfolio with the same name?), return values (e.g., does it return the new portfolio's ID?), or permission requirements. This is inadequate for a mutation 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 very concise with a single sentence, and it is front-loaded with the verb 'Create' and resource 'portfolio.' It earns its place by being succinct, though it could benefit from slightly more detail without losing 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?

Given the tool's complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, mutation), the description is too sparse. It does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., the created portfolio object), nor does it clarify that workspace_gid is required. With no output schema and no annotations, the description should compensate with more detail about behavior and return values.

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 75%, and the description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema. It does not explain the 'color' parameter's format or default, nor does it clarify that 'public' defaults to false (already in schema). The 'workspace_gid' description in the schema provides helpful context (use asana_find), but the tool description itself adds nothing. Baseline is 3 due to high coverage, but the lack of added value drops it to 2.

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 'Create a portfolio in a workspace,' which provides a clear verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like portfolio_update. However, it does not clarify that the portfolio is created in Asana (the workspace context is implied) and could be more specific about the resource type.

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 context by saying 'in a workspace,' and the required workspace_gid and name parameters guide the agent on what to provide. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus creating a project (project_create) or updating a portfolio (portfolio_update), nor any mention of prerequisites like workspace existence.

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