log_trade

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden, and it does disclose two real behaviors: the record is persisted and returned, and validation feedback comes back as "warnings." It does not say what triggers a warning (duplicate detection against MT5? inconsistent close time?), whether the write is reversible or editable, or that required fields must come from the user's dictation rather than being inferred.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler — the scoping condition is front-loaded and the return behavior is a compact second beat. Nothing here could be cut without losing meaning.

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?

An output schema exists, so return shape need not be explained, and the description correctly points at warnings. But for a 17-parameter mutation with no annotations, the definition says nothing about what happens on partial data, how the many optional trade-journal fields should be sourced from dictation, or what a warning implies for the caller.

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?

At 47% schema description coverage across 17 parameters, the description needs to compensate and adds nothing — no explanation of the journal metadata fields (setup, emotions, mistakes, followed_plan), the units for volume or stop_loss, or how pnl relates to entry/exit prices and commission. Only three parameters are documented in the schema at all, and the description mentions none of them.

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?

States a specific verb (Log) and resource (a trade), plus a scope qualifier — trades the user dictates that are NOT in MT5, whether from another broker or unsynced. That qualifier alone separates it from the MT5-sync path and from annotate_trade/get_trade, so an agent can route without opening the schema.

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 negative condition "NOT in MT5 (other broker, or not synced)" plus "the user dictates" is a clear when-to-use signal. It stops short of naming the explicit alternative (sync_mt5) or stating what to do when a trade turns out to be in MT5, so it is not a full when/when-not/alternatives treatment.

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