QuantConnect

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

Annotations provide idempotentHint=true, indicating safe retry behavior, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond the basic update action. It doesn't disclose permissions required, side effects (e.g., if this affects running optimizations), or error conditions. With annotations covering idempotency, the description meets a minimal baseline but lacks depth 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?

The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action and resource, making it easy to parse. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 annotations (idempotentHint) and an output schema (implied by context signals), the description is adequate for basic understanding. However, as a mutation tool, it lacks details on permissions, side effects, or error handling that would enhance completeness. The output schema likely covers return values, but the description doesn't address behavioral nuances.

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%, but the description implies parameters by stating 'name of an optimization'—hinting at optimizationId and name. However, it doesn't clarify parameter roles beyond what's obvious from the action. The schema fully documents the two required fields (optimizationId and name) within the nested model object, so the description adds minimal value, aligning with the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 action ('Update') and resource ('name of an optimization'), making the purpose unambiguous. It specifies that only the name can be updated, which distinguishes it from other update tools like update_backtest or update_project. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like update_project_nodes or update_file_name, which have similar naming patterns but different targets.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing optimization), exclusions (e.g., what cannot be updated besides the name), or comparisons to related tools like create_optimization or delete_optimization. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and schema alone.

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