Investments Update Manual Holding

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

Annotations already establish that this is a mutating, non-read-only, non-idempotent operation. The description adds the detail that it 'may create or update Monarch data', which hints at an upsert-like side effect. However, it does not explain what other side effects, permissions, or data changes could occur, so the added transparency is limited.

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 no redundant filler beyond the second sentence. It could earn its place more fully, but as a conciseness matter it is efficient.

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?

With six parameters, no output schema, and a mutation operation, this description is far from complete. It does not state which fields are updatable, how the output changes across output_mode values, or how update relates to the create/delete siblings, so an agent would lack critical call context.

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%, and the tool description does not compensate by explaining the key parameters. Quantity, cost_basis, and security_type remain semantically ambiguous (e.g., total cost basis vs. per-share, units, allowed security types), and holding_id is only identified as required, not explained.

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 and resource, 'Update manual holding', which makes the core operation clear. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like investments_create_manual_holding and investments_delete_manual_holding, though it mostly restates the tool name and adds little beyond that.

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 about when to use this tool versus creating, deleting, or retrieving a manual holding. The phrase 'may create or update' hints at upsert behavior but does not explain when that occurs, nor does it mention prerequisites or alternatives.

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