annotate_trade

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says nothing about merge-versus-overwrite behavior (append semantics live only in schema field descriptions), whether unknown trade IDs create records or error, what 'last' resolves to, or whether the write is idempotent — meaningful gaps for a mutation tool.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is good for scanning. It is arguably too terse for an 11-parameter tool, but nothing in it is wasted.

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?

Eleven optional parameters, no annotations, and an output schema present, yet the description never explains the append-by-default semantics, the 'last' default for trade, or failure behavior — all load-bearing for correct invocation. It is under-specified for a tool of this complexity.

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?

The description merely re-lists field names (setup, emotions, mistakes, notes, rating) already present in the schema, and omits the trade selector, symbol/on_date narrowing, followed_plan, and both replace flags entirely. At 55% schema coverage those undocumented parameters get no help from either source.

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 — add journal details (setup, emotions, mistakes, notes, rating) to a trade — and hints at scope by noting the trade is 'usually one synced from MT5', which implicitly separates it from log_trade. It stops short of naming siblings explicitly, so an agent must infer the boundary with log_trade on its own.

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?

'Usually one synced from MT5' implies this is for enriching existing trades rather than creating them, which is useful context against log_trade. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no mention of what happens when the trade is not found, and no direction on when to prefer log_trade or get_trade first.

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