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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the core effect ('resizes mirrored positions') and allocation range, but does not state permissions, reversibility, what happens to existing positions during resizing, or whether the change is immediate.

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 front-loaded and concise: a single purpose sentence followed by two short argument descriptions. No sentence is wasteful.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, for a mutation tool with no annotations, the description is only partially complete: it covers parameters and the resizing effect but omits permissions, state safety, and explicit usage boundaries.

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 description must compensate, and it does: fund_id is explained as 'The fund you're copying' and allocation_pct as the new percentage of the paper portfolio with a 1-100 range. It covers both parameters meaningfully, though fund_id format remains implied by the schema type.

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 and resource ('Change the slider on an active copy') and adds a concrete effect ('resizes mirrored positions'), which distinguishes it from start/stop copy tools. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, but the purpose is clear.

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?

'on an active copy' implies the copy must already exist and is not being started or stopped, giving some usage context. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus start_fund_copy, stop_fund_copy, or get_fund_copy_state.

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