aureon_set_portfolio

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the operation is destructive in nature ("Replace ... capital book"), which signals existing positions are overwritten. However it says nothing about auth requirements, whether the replacement is atomic/persistent, what happens to linked objectives, or the response shape.

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 zero filler; the verb and resource lead immediately. Nothing wasteful is present.

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 low-complexity one-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core action but omits the behavioral context an agent needs (destructive scope, persistence, error conditions). It is minimally adequate rather than complete.

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% and there is a single top-level parameter, so the schema already documents positions and its nested fields. The description adds only "provided positions," which is the baseline. A 3 is appropriate 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 gives a specific verb ("Replace") and resource ("wallet capital book") plus the input ("provided positions"). The word "Replace" implicitly distinguishes it from sibling aureon_clear_portfolio (clears) and aureon_sync_portfolio (syncs), though it never names those alternatives 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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus aureon_get_portfolio, aureon_clear_portfolio, or aureon_sync_portfolio, nor any prerequisite or ordering guidance. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and the sibling list.

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