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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: weights are percentages of the fund, sub-100 totals stay in cash, retained bots keep positions, removed bots are closed at market, new bots wait for their next signal (Always Long/Short bots enter immediately), and the change plus rationale are published to public fund history. That is exactly the consequence-level detail a mutating tool needs.

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 effect statement is front-loaded, the roster example is the most compact way to convey the untyped schema, and every following sentence adds a distinct behavioral fact. No filler.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and portfolio consequences are well covered. Gaps are preconditions (must the fund be active/unclosed?) and failure behavior for invalid bots or weights summing over 100 — meaningful for a destructive full-replace mutation with zero annotation coverage.

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 0% and the roster items are untyped objects, so the description must supply structure — and it does, via a concrete JSON example showing bot_id and weight_pct plus the cash-residual rule for weights. It also explains that rationale feeds public history. It stops short of stating weight_pct type/bounds or confirming roster is a full replacement of prior entries.

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 opening sentence states a specific verb and resource — 'Replace your fund's live lineup' — and 'in one call' signals bulk-replace semantics that distinguish it from the sibling mutators add_bot_to_fund, remove_bot_from_fund, swap_bot_in_fund, and update_fund_weights. An agent can route to it without opening the schema.

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 replace-whole-roster framing implies when this tool is appropriate versus per-bot siblings, but it never explicitly says 'use this instead of add/remove/swap' or names preconditions. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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