zuckerbot_rebalance_portfolio

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that dry_run=false updates Meta ad set budgets and local records in one operation, indicating a destructive write. However, it does not detail permissions, reversibility, or failure modes.

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 two sentences, front-loading the main action and modes. Every sentence provides necessary information without 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 dry-run and execute paths, and mentions the effect on Meta budgets and local records. No output schema exists, but the description implies recommendations are returned for dry-run. It lacks detail on error conditions or exact output format, but is adequate for a mutation 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the dry_run parameter's default and overall behavior beyond the schema, but does not significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond what the schema already provides.

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 performs a budget rebalance across portfolio tiers based on CPA performance. It distinguishes between dry-run and execution modes, and differentiates from sibling tools like zuckerbot_get_portfolio or zuckerbot_update_portfolio by focusing on rebalancing.

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 explicitly explains when to use dry_run=true (review) vs dry_run=false (commit), and mentions it's useful for review before committing. It provides clear context, though it doesn't explicitly list when not to use it or alternatives.

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