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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Returns success or error,' without revealing whether the update overwrites all weights or merges with existing ones, whether weights must sum to 100, or how invalid bot_ids are handled. As a mutation tool, these are material gaps.

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 compact, front-loads the one-sentence purpose, and uses a clear Args block. No filler or redundant restatement of the schema is present.

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 two-parameter fund update tool, the description supplies enough to construct an initial call, and there is an output schema despite its absence here. However, missing behavioral details such as whether weights are a full replacement or a partial update, and whether a specific total is required, keep it from being fully complete.

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%, so the description's Args section is essential and does add real meaning: it labels fund_id as the fund's ID and explains that weights is a dict mapping bot_id to a weight percentage, with a concrete example. While it stops short of documenting constraints such as valid ranges or required sum, both parameters are clearly explained for a basic call.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Update allocation weights for bots in a fund's roster.' This clearly identifies the tool's unique role among siblings, especially distinguishing it from update_fund_caps and other fund-management tools.

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 implies the tool is for rebalancing bot weights in a fund, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this over update_fund_caps, add_bot_to_fund, or other alternatives. There are no usage exclusions or prerequisites, so the agent must infer the context from the tool name and resource.

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