create_library_itemCreate a new markdown document in the research library.
Args:
title: Document title
content: Markdown body
folder_id: Folder UUID (optional — omit for library root)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| title | Yes | ||
| content | Yes | ||
| folder_id | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds only the create action and markdown resource type, which is more about purpose than behavior. No additional behavioral traits (e.g., permissions, response format) are disclosed, but with annotations present, the bar is lower.
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 compact and front-loaded: one sentence states the purpose, followed by a concise Args list. No redundant or filler content exists; every sentence adds value.
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 simple create tool with 3 parameters (2 required), an output schema, and clear parameter documentation, the description is adequate. It explains what is created, the required inputs, and the optional folder parameter. It does not mention return values (output schema covers that) or potential errors, but these are not critical gaps for selection and 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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the Args section in the description carries the semantic burden. It explains each parameter: title as 'Document title', content as 'Markdown body', and folder_id as 'Folder UUID (optional — omit for library root)'. This adds meaning beyond the schema's type/required fields, though it could be more detailed about invariants like folder existence.
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 'Create a new markdown document in the research library' with a specific verb, resource type, and destination. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_library_folder, which creates folders, and other create_* 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?
The description implies usage context ('research library', 'markdown document') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided, so it relies on the agent inferring from sibling names and the resource description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct resource and action. Portfolio, alert, watchlist, library, journal, and search tools have clearly separated purposes with no overlapping functionality. Even similar tools like get_portfolio_statistics and get_positions provide different outputs.
The majority follow a clear verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., create_portfolio, delete_library_item). However, 'finance_search' inverts the verb-noun order and 'run_deepdive' uses a less common verb, creating minor but noticeable exceptions.
31 tools is on the high side but each serves a distinct purpose across portfolio management, alerts, watchlists, library, journal, search, and bug reporting. The library subsystem alone accounts for 11 tools (CRUD + versions + move + rename + search), which is justifiable for a full document manager.
Core operations are present but several lifecycle gaps exist: no delete_watchlist, delete_portfolio, update_portfolio, update_alert, or delete_transaction. The journal and deepdive areas also lack update/delete capabilities. Agents may hit dead ends when trying to remove or modify certain resources.