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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does add real substance: weights summing under 100 leave the remainder in cash, an empty roster means all cash, weights may not exceed 100, leverage applies to new positions, and router sizing skips bots without history. It does not state permissions, whether the formation becomes active, cost, or behavior on name collision. It also labels rationale as REQUIRED even though the schema marks only fund_id required, an inconsistency an agent could trip on.

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?

Front-loaded with the action, then a compact Args block where nearly every line carries a non-obvious constraint. The docstring formatting is slightly verbose but no sentence is filler; the "rationale: REQUIRED" capitalization is the only place it wastes emphasis on something the schema contradicts.

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 10-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, the description covers creation semantics, mode selection, and roster constraints, and an output schema exists so return values need not be explained. Remaining gaps are lifecycle (does the formation go live?) and failure conditions, which matter for a write tool.

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% across 10 parameters, so the description must compensate fully and does: every parameter is explained with format or range, including the roster object shape with an inline example, the leverage 1-20x bound, and the two accepted sizing values ("weights" default, "router" Kelly sizing). This is more information than the schema provides by a wide margin.

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?

"Save a formation on the fund's bench" gives a specific verb and resource, and "bench" implies a saved-but-not-live configuration, which distinguishes it from switch_formation. It never explicitly contrasts itself with update_formation or create_fund, so the sibling differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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 parameter notes double as mode selection guidance: use template_key to start from a template (pointing to list_formation_templates) or from_current to snapshot the live roster. It lacks an explicit statement of when to call this versus update_formation or switch_formation, but the routing cues are clear enough to act on.

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