aureon_apply_financial_intent

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that an objective is registered and a flow is returned, but it omits any information about authentication requirements, side effects, whether the operation is destructive or reversible, rate limits, or error behavior.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the action and the return flow efficiently.

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 seven-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It does not explain the return format to compensate for the missing output schema, nor does it clarify prerequisites or how this tool relates to similar siblings like aureon_create_objective.

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 100%, so every parameter is already documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, which matches the baseline of 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 uses a specific verb ('Register') and resource ('user/agent intent as an Automatic objective'), and it states that the tool returns an 'AI → objective → portfolio flow'. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like aureon_create_objective.

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 implies usage ('Register user/agent intent') but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as aureon_create_objective or aureon_update_objective. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or conditions mentioned.

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