zuckerbot_update_portfolio

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

With no annotations provided, the description partially carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explains that budget and tier changes take effect on the next autonomous evaluation cycle, which is useful. But it lacks information on permissions required, idempotency, or any side effects like blocking concurrent operations.

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 long, front-loaded with the main action. It is efficient and avoids redundancy. However, it could be slightly more structured by grouping effects (e.g., listing the delayed effect separately).

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., success status or updated portfolio object). For an update tool, this is a gap. However, it sufficiently covers input and purpose. The complexity is moderate.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds minimal extra context (e.g., 'Changes to budget and tiers take effect on the next autonomous evaluation cycle') but does not enrich individual parameter meanings significantly. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Update the name, total daily budget, active status, or tier configuration of an existing audience portfolio.' The verb 'update' and resource 'audience portfolio' are specific. It distinguishes from siblings like create_portfolio (create new) and rebalance_portfolio (rebalance budget allocation).

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 says 'Use this to adjust a portfolio without relaunching all tiers,' giving a clear use case. It also mentions when changes take effect (next evaluation cycle). However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use or list alternatives like rebalance_portfolio for budget reallocation.

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