finance_investment_capital_compute_rebalance

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

The description adds some behavioral context beyond annotations by noting that the action routes through the domain-agent dispatcher under JWT, tenant, and company scope. However, it does not disclose any details about the destructive or non-idempotent nature flagged in annotations, such as what may be changed or side effects of the rebalance. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 well-structured with an Args section, making it easy to scan. It avoids excessive prose, though the opening sentence is largely redundant with the tool name itself.

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 large sibling set and the opaque action name, the description is not complete enough for reliable selection. It omits a plain-language explanation of what a rebalance computation involves, what inputs should contain, and when this action is preferable to similar finance investment tools. The presence of an output schema helps with return values but not with action selection.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the burden of explaining parameters. It does add some meaning: 'message' is described as a free-text objective and 'inputs' as an optional JSON string of structured inputs. However, it does not explain what structured inputs are valid for the rebalance action or how the message and inputs relate, leaving a significant semantic gap.

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 is essentially tautological: 'Run the finance domain agent action investment_capital_compute_rebalance' restates the tool name as the entire purpose. It does not explain in plain terms what computing a rebalance does or what outcome the agent should expect, and it does not differentiate this from the many finance_investment_* siblings.

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. The description only explains the routing mechanism under JWT, tenant, and company scope, which is contextual but not a selection criterion. It never states what scenarios call for this action or when another finance tool would be more appropriate.

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