Save RIS portfolio

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds substantial context beyond them: versioning semantics (each changed project gets a new version), that links/configuration/favourites/signature are written, that the portfolio is reloaded while preserving display state, that it runs under the desktop session login, and critically that there is no undo step. It also names failure conditions (link cycle stops the save; refused when the open document is not a server 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?

The core write semantics and the alternative-tool routing are front-loaded, and most clauses carry real information (failures, no-undo, session context). It is dense and long for one tool, with some run-on sentences, but little is pure 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?

An output schema exists so return formatting need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. Given a single optional parameter, the description supplies the remaining essentials: precondition (open server portfolio), side effects and permanence, no-op behavior, error codes, and side conditions like link cycles.

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?

Only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents `notes` including the 2000-character limit. The description references 'a note' and a cycle 'named in note', which are return/status messages rather than the parameter, so it adds no semantics for `notes` itself. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 precise verb+resource ('writes the open portfolio of the Rillsoft Integration Server back'), enumerates what is written (changed non-read-only projects, links, configuration, favourites, signature) and explicitly names the sibling tools it is not (rillsoft_project_ris_save, rillsoft_portfolio_project_files_save). An agent can distinguish it from adjacent save tools 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?

Gives explicit preconditions (an open portfolio of the server, otherwise ris_portfolio_not_open) and routes to the correct alternative for each non-matching case: single project via rillsoft_project_ris_save, portfolio file via rillsoft_portfolio_project_files_save. Also states the no-op case ('nothing changed means nothing written'), so when-to-use and when-not are both covered.

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