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

The description adds substantial context beyond the annotations: daily optimisation, each change gated by a walk-forward test, writes to a public ledger, execution with the user's own funds under standing authorisation, and returns the ledger and morning note. It does omit what happens to existing optimisation when living is turned off, but otherwise covers the high-risk behaviour well and is consistent with destructiveHint=true.

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 dense and front-loads the api_key prerequisite rather than the core action, and the trailing '(needs your linked account's key)' repeats the opening key requirement. The parenthetical explanation of 'living' is informative but makes the sentence harder to parse than necessary.

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 destructive, non-idempotent mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the mechanism, authorisation basis, ledger side effect, and returned artifacts. The main remaining gap is parameter-level completeness, especially basket_id, but behaviourally an agent has enough to invoke it responsibly.

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 coverage is only 33%: api_key is documented in the schema and the description adds its source and linked-account requirement, but basket_id has no explanation anywhere and the boolean 'living' is only implied by 'or turn it off'. With low schema coverage the description should compensate more fully for the undocumented parameters.

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 action: turning a basket's 'living' mode on or off, including what 'living' means (daily optimisation within theme members). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from nearby siblings like theme_journey_edit_basket or toggle_bot_trading, but the verb and resource are clear enough for selection.

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 states the prerequisite (api_key from register_agent and a linked account key) but gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as theme_journey_edit_basket or toggle_bot_trading. The only implied usage is turning living mode on or off, with no when-not conditions.

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