Create RIS portfolio

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

Annotations only declare the write/openWorld/idempotent profile; the description adds the important traits: it takes effect on the server immediately with no undo step, it runs under the desktop session login, and duplicate names or unknown folder/project ids are refused before anything is sent. This is substantially more than the annotations convey and consistent with them (destructive=false since it only adds a portfolio).

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 verb and resource, then effect, alternatives, and validation in a compact block. Slightly dense with multiple clauses in one sentence, but every clause adds 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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the description covers the remaining agent-relevant questions: immediacy, reversibility, authorisation context, validation failures, and related tools.

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 coverage is 100%, so parameters are already documented; the description only loosely restates 'its kind, folders and projects' without adding format or constraint detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the weight.

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?

States a specific verb (creates) and resource (portfolio of the logged-in client on the RIS), and anchors it to a known UI affordance (the 'New' button of the portfolio dialog). It also names sibling tools (delete/open) so the agent can place it in the portfolio lifecycle without opening schemas.

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?

Clear context for when this applies and what the natural follow-ups are: rillsoft_portfolio_ris_delete removes it and rillsoft_portfolio_ris_open loads it. It stops short of explicit exclusions (e.g., when to prefer update vs create), so it is strong context rather than full when/when-not routing.

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