update_portfolio_holding

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

The description discloses a key behavioral trait: renaming a holding cascades to all transactions because get_portfolio_analysis groups by foreign key, not by string. It also warns about stale rows from account moves, adding value beyond the annotations (which show destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=true, with no contradiction).

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 plus a clear note, all front-loaded with essential information. Every sentence adds value: purpose, cascade behavior, and refusal warning with alternatives. No extraneous content.

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 the tool has 7 parameters, no output schema, and good annotations, the description adequately covers behavior, cascading effects, and caveats. It explains what happens when renaming, why account moves are refused, and directs to appropriate alternatives. No gaps for an update tool.

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 43% (3 of 7 parameters have descriptions). The description lists the modifiable fields and explains the refusal of the account parameter, which compensates for missing schema descriptions. However, it could provide more detail on constraints like maxLength for name or note.

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 verb 'update' and the resource 'portfolio holding', listing specific modifiable fields (name, symbol, currency, isCrypto, note). It distinguishes itself from siblings like record_transfer and update_transaction by describing their appropriate use cases.

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 explicitly warns against using the legacy 'account' parameter, explains why it is refused, and provides two concrete alternatives: record_transfer for moving shares between accounts and updating transactions individually for re-attribution.

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