Rename / update portfolio

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses partial update behavior ('Only the fields you pass are touched'), which is valuable. However, it omits other behavioral traits such as required permissions, idempotency, or side effects. The disclosure is helpful but incomplete.

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?

Two concise sentences front-load the purpose and add a critical behavioral detail. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

The tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description explains what the tool does and the update semantics, but it does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., success indicator or updated portfolio). Given the complexity, this is a moderate gap.

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 description adds meaning beyond the input schema by mapping 'visibility' to the 'public' parameter, which the schema only describes with type 'boolean'. It also clarifies that only passed fields are updated. This compensates for the schema's lack of description for the 'public' field (schema coverage 75%).

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 changes a portfolio's name, color, or visibility. The verb 'change' and resource 'portfolio' set a clear purpose. While it doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings like portfolio_create, the intent is obvious given the sibling context.

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 for modifying an existing portfolio, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like portfolio_create. The context of sibling tools makes the usage scenario inferable, but not directly stated.

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