aureon_update_objective

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 a valuable immutability constraint (identity/automation fields are fixed), but says nothing about permissions/auth, whether omitted fields are left untouched, validation failures, or side effects such as triggering rebalancing or 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?

Two tight clauses with no filler; the mutable-field list is front-loaded and the constraint follows. Every phrase carries information an agent needs.

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 an 8-parameter mutation tool with zero annotations, no output schema, and 25% schema coverage, the description is too thin: half the parameters are undocumented in either place, and there is no mention of return behavior or side effects. It covers the immutability rule but leaves the agent under-informed.

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 only 25% (2 of 8), so the description must compensate. It names four mutable fields (name, tolerance, priority, and loosely "weight" for targetWeight) but omits maxRiskScore, reinvestRatio, reason, and objectiveId, and the "weight" naming is ambiguous against the schema's targetWeight.

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 specific verb+resource ("Partial update" of an objective) and enumerates the mutable fields, which lets an agent distinguish it from aureon_create_objective, aureon_get_objective, and aureon_pause_objective. It is clear without being a tautology, though it does not explicitly name a sibling for contrast.

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?

Provides an explicit when-not and alternative: targetSymbol and automationMode cannot be changed, so the agent should "recreate instead." That is real routing guidance. It stops short of stating prerequisites (e.g. objective must exist, must not be paused) or when to prefer this over other objective-mutating siblings.

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