place_mf_order

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load and does disclose the most important trait: the call is a dry run unless KITE_MCP_ENABLE_TRADING=true, which tells the agent this is not an always-live mutation. It stops short of covering permission/auth requirements, irreversibility of a live order, or what a dry run returns.

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?

Two short sentences with zero waste; the buy/sell distinction and the trading-enable gate are both front-loaded and immediately actionable.

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 an unannotated mutation tool with no output schema, the dry-run gate is the crucial piece and it is present. However, nothing is said about what happens on a live order, failure modes, or the purpose of 'tag', leaving the agent with clear gaps before invoking it in production.

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 60%, and the amount-for-BUY / quantity-for-SELL mapping in the description largely restates the schema's own parameter descriptions. The 'tag' parameter is undocumented in both places, so the description does not compensate for the remaining 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?

States a specific verb and resource (place a mutual fund buy or sell order) and encodes the amount-vs-quantity branch, which cleanly separates it from the equity place_order and the recurring-place_mf_sip 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?

'Mutual fund' implies the context in which this is the right tool, but the description never explicitly says to use it instead of place_order or place_mf_sip, and gives no preconditions such as having an available balance or an ISIN in hand.

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