avanza_position_strategy_register_batch

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full safety burden and does it well: it discloses that the tool only mutates the private local registry, never Avanza, explains the confirm authorization boundary, and describes strict refusal behavior for stop/order or other mismatches plus the preservation flag semantics. It does not describe dry-run return shape or error behavior, but the disclosed behavioral traits are substantive and go well beyond the schema.

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?

Four dense sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and safety boundary. Each sentence introduces a distinct and necessary constraint, and there is no filler, though the heavy jargon around 'rebaselining a reviewed holding-only exception' slightly reduces immediate clarity for an agent.

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 batch registration tool with six top-level parameters, a very large item schema, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the most critical selection and safety decisions. It omits dry-run return semantics, prune_stale behavior, session parameter usage, and the specific difference from the stoploss registration sibling, so it is not fully complete for confident invocation.

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?

Top-level schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds real meaning to confirm (R/W auth requirement), preserve_audit_exception_fingerprint (update without rebaselining, refuses mismatches), and protection_classification/protection_reason (explicit per-row requirement). However, session_id, tenant_session_id, and prune_stale receive no explanation at all, so compensation is only partial.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'register reviewed strategy plans for exact live account-position states' and clearly scopes it as local-registry-only, 'never Avanza.' It distinguishes itself from live order/stoploss mutators and audit siblings by emphasizing dry-run or atomic local registration, so an agent can tell what this tool does.

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 gives clear operational context: dry-run or commit behavior, confirm=true requiring MCP R/W but not live-trading authorization, and no Avanza side effects. However, it never explicitly tells an agent when to choose this over closely related siblings such as avanza_stoploss_strategy_register_batch or avanza_position_strategy_audit, so part of the selection decision is left to inference.

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