setFixedTermAutoInvest

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

Annotations already indicate this is a mutating, non-destructive operation. The description adds a rate limit and the FundPool applicability note, which is useful context. However, it does not describe what happens when enabling or disabling succeeds, whether the operation is reversible, or what response to expect. With annotations carrying the safety profile, a 3 is reasonable.

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 short, front-loaded with the main purpose, and uses bullet notes for additional context. Every sentence adds value: the core action, the applicability constraint, and the rate limit. No filler or redundancy.

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 mutation tool with four required parameters and no output schema, the description provides enough to understand the action and one key prerequisite but omits behavioral outcomes, return value, and common failure conditions. It is adequate for a simple toggle but leaves gaps an agent may need when executing or handling the response.

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 coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. The description adds meaning to the 'category' parameter by noting that only FundPool products are applicable, but it does not explain productId, positionId, or status beyond what their names suggest. The parameter names and enum values are fairly self-explanatory, but the description provides only partial compensation for the complete lack of schema descriptions.

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 starts with a specific verb phrase, 'Enable or disable auto-reinvestment, followed by the clear resource, 'for a fixed term position.' It directly states the tool's core function and is easily distinguished from unrelated sibling tools. Even without naming alternatives, the action and resource are unambiguous.

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 an explicit applicability condition: 'Only applicable for FundPool products that support auto-reinvestment (allowAutoReinvest=true).' This gives clear context about when the tool is valid, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or say when not to use the tool. The prerequisite is valuable enough to merit a 4.

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