place_mf_sip

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose a genuinely important non-obvious trait: execution is a dry-run unless KITE_MCP_ENABLE_TRADING=true. However, it omits what a dry-run returns, whether margin must be available (calculate_order_margins exists as a sibling), and whether the SIP auto-activates after creation.

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, purpose front-loaded followed by the execution-mode caveat. Nothing wasted and nothing buried.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the dry-run disclosure is essential but insufficient: return shape of a dry-run, margin prerequisites, and post-creation state are all unaddressed for a 7-parameter trading tool.

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 only 57%, and the description adds no parameter meaning at all. Parameters like tag, amount, and frequency are left to the schema alone, and instalment_day/initial_amount semantics come solely from the schema descriptions; the description does nothing to compensate for the coverage 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+resource ('Start a mutual fund SIP') and glosses the acronym as 'recurring investment', which makes the purpose unambiguous. The verb 'Start' contrasts implicitly with modify_mf_sip and cancel_mf_sip siblings, but no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage context is implied by 'Start a ... SIP', but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no pointer to modify_mf_sip/cancel_mf_sip for changes, and no mention of prerequisites such as funds or margin checks. The dry-run note is a useful guardrail but is behavioral rather than usage-guiding.

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