cap_account_preferences_set

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It mentions 'TRADE-GATED' and confirm requirement, but does not state if the operation is idempotent, whether it mutates state, or any side effects. This is insufficient for understanding the tool's impact.

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 very concise at one sentence, front-loading the action. However, it sacrifices necessary details for brevity, making it borderline too sparse.

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?

Despite having few parameters and an output schema, the description fails to explain parameter semantics or behavioral nuances. It is incomplete for an agent to confidently invoke the tool without further context.

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%, yet the description only hints at the 'confirm' parameter. It does not explain 'hedging_mode' or 'leverages' at all, leaving the agent without meaning for over half the parameters.

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 'Set account preferences', which is a specific verb+resource combo, and distinguishes from the sibling 'get' tool. However, it does not elaborate on which preferences can be set, relying on the schema for that.

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 only usage guidance is 'Requires confirm=true when configured', which is vague and does not explain when to use this tool vs alternatives or provide prerequisites. No when-not-to-use or context for the trade-gate.

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