Investments Update Manual Holding

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false (write operation) and destructiveHint=false. The description adds 'may create or update Monarch data' but does not clarify the conditions for creation vs. update, nor disclose side effects like overwriting fields or permission requirements. The description adds minimal value beyond 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 (two sentences) and front-loads the primary action. However, the second sentence is non-essential and potentially confusing. It could be improved by removing ambiguity or adding structured brevity.

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 7 parameters, no output schema, and only minimal annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what a manual holding is, how updates are applied (additive vs. full replacement), or what the agent should expect as a result. More context is needed for reliable tool selection and 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 description coverage is only 29% (2 of 7 parameters have descriptions). The tool description does not explain the meaning or usage of any parameters (e.g., quantity, cost_basis, security_type). It fails to compensate for the low schema coverage, leaving key parameter semantics undocumented.

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 'Update manual holding', which identifies a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling create and delete tools. However, it adds ambiguity by saying 'This may create or update Monarch data', conflicting with the tool's name and potentially misleading the agent about its primary purpose.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., investments_create_manual_holding). The description does not state prerequisites, consequences, or relative positioning among siblings, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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