Delete RIS portfolio

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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: it discloses that the delete is a soft delete (record deactivated, projects untouched), that it takes effect immediately with no undo, that an open portfolio is refused, and that it runs under the desktop session login. These are exactly the side-effect and precondition details an agent cannot infer from destructiveHint/idempotentHint alone.

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 core action, then proceeds through side effects, refusal condition, reversibility, and session context. Every sentence contributes distinct information with no filler.

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 a destructive single-parameter mutation with an output schema present, the description covers side effects, refusal behavior, reversibility, and execution context. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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% with a single parameter already documented as 'id of the portfolio, from rillsoft_portfolio_ris_list'. The description adds no additional parameter syntax or format detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Deletes a portfolio of the logged-in client on the Rillsoft Integration Server') and identifies the exact UI affordance it mirrors. It also names the counterpart tool (rillsoft_portfolio_ris_create), so an agent can distinguish it from sibling mutations without opening a schema.

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?

Provides a clear precondition (refused when the portfolio is open, with the portfolio_is_open error) and points to the counterpart create tool, giving real when-to-use context. The remediation hint 'call rillsoft_project_create first' is confusing and possibly incorrect for an open-portfolio state, which keeps it from a 5.

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