sync_holdings

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

With no annotations provided, the description discloses two behavioral traits: writing to a file (side effect) and silent skipping for unsupported institutions. This adds value beyond what annotations would provide.

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 sentences, no fluff. The first sentence front-loads the primary action and result; the second adds an important constraint. Every word earns its place.

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 tool's simplicity (one optional param, output schema exists), the description covers the main action and side effect but omits parameter explanation. The output schema likely covers return format, but ambiguity remains about the parameter's effect.

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?

The sole parameter 'institution_alias' is not mentioned in the description, and schema coverage is 0%. The description does not explain how this parameter affects behavior, leaving the agent to guess its role.

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 the verb 'Pull' and the resource 'investment holdings' with specific asset types (stocks, ETFs, etc.). It also names the output action ('write the auto-sync block in Investments.md'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like sync_transactions and sync_liabilities.

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 description provides a useful caveat about institutions without Plaid investments support, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like sync_all or sync_balances. No 'use X instead' or prerequisites are mentioned.

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