set_trading_rules

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the rules are later read by coaching reviews, which explains the persistence purpose. However, it omits whether saving replaces prior rules (overwrite vs append), whether a partial rules text is acceptable, and whether confirmation is needed.

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?

One sentence, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the rationale trailing. It is efficiently sized for a one-parameter tool, though the brevity leaves gaps that a second short clause could have closed.

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 values need not be explained, and the single parameter is fully documented in the schema. What remains missing is behavioral: overwrite semantics and how the rules interact with the behavior/coaching reports. For a simple persistence tool this is adequate but not complete.

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 100% with a single parameter already documented as 'The user's full trading plan/rules as text.' The description's phrasing ('written trading rules') adds no format, length, or completeness guidance beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 and resource: save the user's written trading rules. It also hints at downstream consumers (coaching reviews), which clarifies what the stored data is for. It doesn't distinguish itself from near-siblings like save_trade_feedback or save_ai_report, which also save user-authored text.

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?

Usage is only implied: use when the user has written trading rules to persist. There is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over save_trade_feedback or write_day_note, nor any precondition such as 'call only after the user has articulated a full plan.'

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