sc_portfolio_group_assign

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 reveals an important side effect ('auto-removes from other groups') and a prerequisite (environment variable). However, it does not mention what happens if the group does not exist, whether the operation is reversible, or any validation behavior. This is adequate but incomplete.

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?

Two sentences with no filler: first sentence states the action and key behavior, second states a requirement. This is efficient and front-loaded. Could be improved by adding parameter context without becoming verbose, but overall it is well-structured.

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 tool has 3 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema. The description covers the core action and a side effect, but omits parameter meanings and usage conditions. An agent would need to guess or rely on parameter names alone, which is insufficient for confident invocation. Completeness is notably lacking.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does not explain any parameter: 'isins', 'group_id', or 'portfolio_id' are left undefined. The term 'holdings' in the description loosely maps to 'isins', but the connection is not explicit. No parameter-level semantic help is provided.

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 'Assign holdings to a portfolio group' which uses a specific verb and resource. The added note 'auto-removes from other groups' distinguishes it from siblings like sc_portfolio_group_unassign and sc_portfolio_group_create, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., sc_portfolio_group_unassign). The auto-removal hint implies a moving use case, but there is no direct comparison or scenario description. The agent must infer usage context from the bare action description.

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