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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, but the description adds substantial behavioral detail: 'Omitted saved lines stay unchanged,' 'An actual removal first returns an approval request; nothing changes then,' and the need to resend with approval details. This goes well beyond the binary annotation flags and clarifies the side effects of removal.

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 concise and well-structured, with five sentences each serving a distinct purpose: primary action, update behavior, removal modes, approval flow, and procedural next step. It is front-loaded with the core verb and resource, and there is no filler or redundancy.

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 description covers the main behaviors (upsert, removal modes, approval workflow) and even gives a procedural hint ('Review current movements in the Schedule III workspace, then resend...'). However, with no output schema and low schema parameter explanation, it does not specify what the tool returns or the exact form of the 'approval details' (e.g., removal_token/removal_count), leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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 only 13%, so the description carries the burden. It explains the removal parameters (remove_leaf_codes, clear_all) and their exclusivity, and mentions the movement types (transfers in/out, dividends, other changes). However, it does not explain the core required parameters (client_id, template_id, period_id) in any detail, and the structure of 'movements' is left to the schema. It adds some meaning but does not fully compensate for the low coverage.

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 tool 'Upsert reserves/equity movements (transfers in/out, dividends, other changes) per reserves line.' This specifies the action (upsert), the resource (reserves/equity movements), and even the type of movements, distinguishing it from sibling tools like save_asset_movements and save_provision_movements.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool (for reserves/equity movements) and gives explicit instructions for removal modes: 'pass remove_leaf_codes; to remove the entire saved set, pass clear_all (never both).' It also explains the approval resend workflow. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool.

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