create_portal_widget

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, open-world mutation. The description adds valuable environment-gating context: WRITE_ENABLED and SCRIPTING_ENABLED must be true. It does not contradict annotations, though it could say more about duplicate-ID behavior or response shape.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that covers the action, resource, included artifact types, and prerequisite flags. There is no filler text and every clause earns its place.

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 create-mutation tool with full schema coverage and clear annotations, the description covers purpose and prerequisites well. It omits what the tool returns (e.g. created widget ID or record) and edge-case behavior like duplicate ID handling, which are the main remaining gaps.

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 all 8 parameters are already documented in the schema. The description only summarizes template, CSS, and scripts and does not add syntax, format, or interaction details beyond the schema. 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?

The description states a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('Service Portal widget') plus the included artifact types (template, CSS, scripts). The word 'new' cleanly distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_portal_widget, get_portal_widget, and list_portal_widgets.

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?

It gives an important operational prerequisite ('requires WRITE_ENABLED=true and SCRIPTING_ENABLED=true'), but it does not explicitly compare when to use this vs. update_portal_widget or list_portal_widgets. Usage is implied by 'Create a new' rather than spelled out with alternatives.

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