Open RIS portfolio

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses that the current document is replaced, the UI-imposed limits (nothing directly below the portfolio, cross-project dependencies become RIS links, no baseline, no 'save as'), which operations work on loaded project documents (list/download/update/delete, not create), that unreadable/foreign-pool projects are omitted and named in 'skipped', the discardChanges requirement, and that there is no undo because command history restarts. Matches the destructiveHint=true / idempotentHint=true annotations.

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 dense but information-bearing caveats. The long parenthetical is heavy but each clause (limits, skipped projects, discardChanges, save path, undo) earns its place; only minor tightening is possible.

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 complex state-mutating tool with an output schema already present, the description covers side effects, limits, locking implications, skip behavior, the discardChanges prerequisite, redirects to the correct sibling tools, and the loss of undo. Nothing an agent needs in order to call 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%, so the schema already documents lock, projectIds, discardChanges and readOnlyProjectIds. The description reinforces discardChanges:true behavior and references 'skipped', but adds little semantic detail beyond what the parameter descriptions already carry; 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 (Opens) and resource (portfolio of the logged-in client from the Rillsoft Integration Server), and explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings rillsoft_portfolio_file_open (opens a file) and rillsoft_portfolio_ris_save (saving). An agent can tell exactly what this does and how it differs from adjacent tools.

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?

Names the alternatives and when they apply ('Saving goes back through rillsoft_portfolio_ris_save; a portfolio file is opened through rillsoft_portfolio_file_open instead') and gives the condition for discardChanges:true. Clear context, though it stops short of an explicit 'use this when / not when' framing.

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