aureon_clear_portfolio

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the scope of destruction ('all capital-book positions') and implies an auth requirement ('authenticated wallet'), which is real behavioral information. It says nothing about irreversibility, whether positions are deleted versus zeroed, or downstream side effects on objectives/executions.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is well-sized for the operation. It is slightly thin for the risk profile of the action, but nothing is wasted or 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 destructive, no-parameter, no-output-schema mutation with zero annotations, the description leaves critical questions unanswered: is it reversible, what happens to objectives/executions that depend on the cleared positions, and what a successful clear returns. The agent cannot safely predict the outcome.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a parameterless tool is 4. The description correctly implies no filtering or selection options exist.

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 clear verb (clear) and resource (capital-book positions for the authenticated wallet), so the intent is unambiguous. However, it does not distinguish itself from siblings like aureon_set_portfolio, aureon_sync_portfolio, or aureon_get_portfolio, which operate on the same resource.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the nearest alternatives (aureon_set_portfolio or aureon_sync_portfolio) that could plausibly be confused with this one. The agent must infer usage entirely.

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