finance_investment_agent_capital_portfolio

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, and the description does not contradict that. It adds useful routing and scoping context (JWT, tenant, company scope), but it does not disclose what side effects the underlying action may have, which would be valuable given the destructive hint.

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 compact and front-loaded: it states the action, gives one line of routing context, and lists the two args. There is no fluff or redundant repetition of schema fields.

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 potentially destructive action with an opaque name, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the capital portfolio action does, when an agent should select it over the many sibling finance tools, or what effects it can have. The output schema exists, so return format is covered, but selection and side-effect understanding are not.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description carries the parameter-documentation burden. It adds basic meaning: `message` is a free-text objective and `inputs` is an optional JSON string of structured inputs. This is helpful but still vague about what structured inputs the action expects.

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 action to run: `investment_agent_capital_portfolio`, and clarifies it is a finance domain agent action routed through the platform dispatcher. This distinguishes it from generic dispatcher tools by naming the exact action, though it doesn't explain what 'capital portfolio' actually 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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like `dispatch_domain_agent` or other `finance_investment_*` tools. It mentions routing under JWT/tenant/company scope, but that's context about execution, not selection guidance.

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