configure_autopilot

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

Annotations already declare idempotent=true, destructiveHint=false, readOnlyHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description usefully adds that this requires a pioneer_plus tier gate and names the backing API endpoints. It does not clarify whether configuring replaces or merges existing settings, which matters for a mutation tool.

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?

Compact, with the core action sentence front-loaded. The bracketed capability/tier/API metadata is dense but functional, not gratuitous; overall there is little waste.

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 mutation tool with 9 parameters, 5 required, and 0% schema coverage plus no output schema, the description is far too thin. An agent lacks enough information to supply session/agent/auth parameters or understand the effect of the optional tuning fields.

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% across 9 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely fails. It loosely names strategies, assets, and risk parameters but leaves sessionId, agentAddress, sessionToken, autoCompound, maxEquityPct, and rebalanceIntervalMin entirely undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb (Configure) and resource (autopilot) plus the dimensions being set (strategies, assets, risk parameters), which distinguishes it from pause/resume/cycle siblings. It is clear what the tool does, though the field list doesn't map precisely to all configurable inputs.

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 when-to-use or when-not guidance relative to siblings like autopilot_cycle, pause_autopilot, or resume_autopilot. The tier-gate metadata implies a precondition but does not explain the workflow position or prerequisites for calling it.

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