position_add

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description '添加持仓记录' implies a write operation (adding a record), but it doesn't disclose any behavioral traits: no information about permissions required, whether duplicates are allowed, what happens on success/failure, or any side effects (e.g., updating related data). This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 Chinese phrase ('添加持仓记录') that directly states the tool's purpose with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it immediately clear what the tool does without unnecessary elaboration.

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?

Given the complexity (a mutation tool with 6 required parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error conditions, or behavioral context. While the schema covers parameters well, the description fails to provide necessary operational context for safe and effective use.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with all 6 parameters clearly documented in the schema (e.g., code as stock code, market with enum values). The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond the schema. According to the rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description, which applies here.

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 '添加持仓记录' (add position record) clearly states the verb (add) and resource (position record), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like position_get (retrieve), position_remove (delete), and position_update (modify) by focusing on creation. However, it doesn't specify what exactly constitutes a 'position record' beyond the parameters listed in 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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether the stock must exist in the system), when not to use it (e.g., for updating existing positions), or direct alternatives like position_update for modifications. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and sibling context alone.

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