edit_snapshot

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It reveals that market is ignored for non-stock assets, but does not disclose error behavior (e.g., if snapshot does not exist), whether updates are partial or full replacements, or any authorization needs. This is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 two sentences, concise and well-structured. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it easy to parse.

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?

Given 7 parameters and no output schema, the description covers identification and field updates but omits important context such as the requirement for an existing snapshot (presumably created via add_snapshot) or idempotency behavior. It is adequate for basic use but leaves gaps for an AI agent.

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 57%, and the description adds value beyond schema by clarifying identification logic (date + asset_type + market + ticker) and the market handling for non-stock assets. It compensates for missing schema descriptions and provides business context.

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 that the tool updates shares, avg_price, or current_price for a holding in a snapshot, identified by date and asset details. It distinguishes from siblings like edit_txn by focusing on snapshot holdings, and explains special handling for non-stock assets.

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 implicitly indicates when to use (updating snapshot holdings) but does not explicitly mention when not to use or provide alternative tools. It gives context for non-stock assets, which is helpful, but lacks direct guidance on exclusion cases.

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