fahali_update_portfolio_watch

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real context by stating the fail-closed rules (short legs, hedges, negative exposure, can_short=true) and disclaiming recommendation/order/execution authority. It stops short of saying what state is lost if a field is omitted or what happens to prior positions on update.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and the constrained field set, with the safety constraint and authority disclaimer following in a logical order. Every clause carries weight; nothing is padded.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the destructive/retire semantics are documented in the schema for status. However, for a 15-parameter destructive update the description never states whether omitted fields are preserved or replaced (merge vs. full-replace semantics), which is the single most consequential unknown for an agent calling it.

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 47% across 15 parameters, so the description carries partial compensation; it enumerates the updatable field groups but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already states (e.g., the can_short 'must remain false' constraint is duplicated from the schema). Parameters like detail, limit, since, symbols, position_source, and include_withheld are left entirely to the schema.

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?

Opens with a specific verb plus enumerated resource fields ('positions, connected-account scope, mandate, thresholds, interval, or status'), which tells an agent exactly what can be mutated. It doesn't name the sibling it complements (fahali_watch_portfolio for creation, fahali_list_portfolio_watches for reads), so the boundary is inferable 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?

Usage is implied by the objects it updates (an existing watch identified by watch_id) and by the fail-closed constraints, but there is no explicit 'use this when you need to change an existing watch, create with fahali_watch_portfolio instead' routing. No exclusions or prerequisite conditions are given.

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