sc_portfolio_group_unassign

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden. It discloses that the tool performs a write operation that removes a holding from a group. However, it does not mention error conditions (e.g., if the holding is not in the group), side effects, or reversibility. The existence of an output schema somewhat compensates, but the description offers minimal behavioral context beyond the operation's basic effect.

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 totalling under 25 words. Every word is functional: the first states the operation, the second states a prerequisite. There is no redundancy or fluff.

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 the tool has 3 parameters (2 required) and an output schema, the description covers the core operation and a key requirement. However, it does not explain parameter meaning or error handling. For a simple mutation tool, this is minimally adequate but leaves gaps that the agent must infer from parameter names alone.

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 add meaning to the three parameters. The description does not explain what 'isin', 'group_id', or 'portfolio_id' represent. For example, it is unclear whether 'portfolio_id' is needed when unassigning from a group or what its relation is to the group. This omission limits the agent's ability to use the tool correctly.

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 verb 'Remove' and the resource 'a holding from a portfolio group', with the clarifying parenthetical 'returns it to ungrouped'. This differentiates from sibling tools like sc_portfolio_group_assign (which does the opposite) and sc_portfolio_group_delete (which deletes the group itself).

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 provides a clear prerequisite (requires SC_MCP_ENABLE_WRITES=true), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like sc_portfolio_group_assign or when not to use it. The context is clear, but exclusions or comparative guidance are missing.

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