delete_portfolio

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

The annotation destructiveHint: true already indicates a destructive operation. The description adds the valuable context 'Permanent, cannot be undone' which goes beyond the annotation by clarifying irreversibility. No contradiction exists between description and 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?

The description is extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences that front-load the action and key caveat. Every word earns its place with no unnecessary detail.

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 a single parameter, an output schema exists, and the description covers the operation and its permanence. Given the simplicity and the presence of structured metadata, the description is complete and sufficient for safe invocation.

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 input schema fully documents the only parameter portfolio_id as 'The portfolio UUID to delete', achieving 100% coverage. The description's 'by ID' adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 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?

The description clearly states the action ('Delete a portfolio by ID') with a specific verb and resource, and 'Permanent, cannot be undone' reinforces the nature of the operation. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_portfolio or update_portfolio.

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 use case is implied by the clear verb and resource, but no explicit guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are any exclusions or prerequisites mentioned. It does not name sibling tools for comparison.

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