Agent: propose rebalance

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

Annotations already indicate a non-destructive write operation. Description adds little beyond stating 'proposes' - no mention of side effects, storage of proposals, or behavior based on confidence. With annotations present, the description offers minimal additional behavioral context.

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 of 10 words, no fluff. Conveys the core purpose efficiently. Every word earns its place.

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?

For a tool with 3 parameters, no output schema, and minimal annotations, the description is adequate but not comprehensive. Lacks details on return value, required parameters, or what happens after the proposal. However, given the simplicity, it meets a minimum viable level.

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 descriptions cover all 3 parameters with basic info (e.g., 'confidence'). Description adds no new parameter semantics beyond mentioning confidence and rationale in the purpose. Baseline of 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.

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?

Description clearly states the action (propose rebalance), actor (robo-advisor), and key outputs (confidence score, rationale). It distinguishes from sibling tools like agent_execute_preapproved_order which executes orders.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. Does not mention prerequisites or exclusion criteria. The description implies it's for proposing rebalances, but fails to cue the agent about when to propose versus execute.

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