Investments Create Manual Holding

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

Annotations already signal readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, lowering the burden on the description. The phrase 'This may create or update Monarch data' adds a mild upsert-like hint not present in structured fields, but it remains vague about actual side effects and consequences.

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 and front-loaded with the core action. The second sentence adds little value, but the definition is compact and free of redundant prose.

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?

There is no output schema, yet the description says nothing about return values, required identifier semantics, or behavior when a holding already exists. For a six-parameter mutation tool, this is incomplete and leaves important operational details unspecified.

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 33%; only 'fields' and 'output_mode' have schema descriptions, while account_id, security_id, quantity, and cost_basis are undocumented. The tool description names none of these parameters and does nothing to compensate for the low coverage.

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 clearly states the action and resource: 'Create manual holding.' The verb distinguishes it from list/get tools, but the follow-up 'may create or update Monarch data' blurs the distinction from investments_update_manual_holding and no explicit sibling differentiation is provided.

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 guidance is given for when to use this tool versus investments_update_manual_holding or investments_delete_manual_holding. The agent is left to infer that 'create' is for new holdings with no stated criteria or exclusions.

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