Agent: propose rebalance

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is not read-only and not destructive. The description adds that it 'proposes' a rebalance, suggesting a non-execution action, but lacks details on side effects (e.g., does it create a record? trigger a notification?). Beyond the annotation hints, the description offers limited behavioral insight.

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 a single sentence that immediately conveys the core purpose. No extraneous words; it is front-loaded and efficient. Every word adds value.

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?

The tool has no output schema and moderate complexity (3 parameters, no enums, no nested objects). The description does not explain the return format or behavior of the proposal (e.g., whether it returns the proposal object or a confirmation). It mentions confidence and rationale but not how they are presented. This leaves a significant gap for an agent to understand the full tool behavior.

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?

Input schema has 100% parameter description coverage (portfolioId, confidence, rationale all have descriptions). The description does not add any extra meaning beyond the schema's own field descriptions. With high schema coverage, baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description adds no additional semantic value.

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 that the tool proposes a portfolio rebalance with a confidence score and rationale. The verb 'proposes' and resource 'portfolio rebalance' are specific, and the output details are mentioned. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like agent_execute_preapproved_order or agent_fetch_market_signal.

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 versus alternatives. The description implies its purpose (proposing rebalances), but does not provide context such as prerequisites, when not to use it, or how it fits in a workflow. Sibling tools could be used in conjunction, but no exclusions or recommendations are given.

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