Investments Delete Manual Holding

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false. The description's additional phrase 'may delete, clear, reset, or otherwise remove data' is vague and does not specify what is cleared or reset, whether deletion is irreversible, or what cascading effects might occur. It adds little beyond the annotations.

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, but the second sentence 'This may delete, clear, reset, or otherwise remove data' is vague filler that adds little concrete information. It is concise, but not every sentence earns its place.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and no usage guidance, the description is incomplete. It does not explain consequences, required ownership, or what 'manual holding' deletion entails. The annotations cover the safety profile, but the overall definition lacks essential context for confident invocation.

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 67%, below the high threshold, so the description should compensate by explaining key parameters. It does not mention holding_id, fields, or output_mode at all. The schema documents fields and output_mode, but holding_id remains undescribed and the tool description offers no additional semantic value.

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 states a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('manual holding'), clearly identifying the tool's function. Among the investments siblings, only this tool performs deletion, so it is well distinguished from list/get/create/update alternatives.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The agent must infer from the tool name and sibling context that this is for removing a manual holding; the description itself offers no decision support.

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