save_portfolio_snapshot

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

No annotations are provided, but the description fully discloses key behaviors: the snapshot is stored under portfolio.snapshots/data/private/snapshots, is git-ignored, uses a specific mapping and target preference, and refuses to overwrite without force=True. This gives the agent a solid understanding of side effects and constraints.

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 dense but every clause adds value: purpose, storage location, mapping behavior, target preference, and overwrite protection. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no filler.

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 write-side snapshot tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects needed to select and invoke it: what it does, where data goes, how mapping behaves, and how overwriting is handled. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to act correctly.

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%, so the baseline is 3 and the schema documents all three parameters. The description adds limited parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, mostly clarifying behavioral details rather than the parameters themselves.

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 the tool's action: freezing a local export into a dated monthly snapshot at a specific location. It also distinguishes itself from related siblings by noting it maps holdings the same way as map_holdings_to_targets and prefers investment_plan.json targets over get_portfolio_config's.

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 conveys when to use the tool: before a later check-in to measure what actually changed rather than re-deriving unrecorded history. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to infer the appropriate use case.

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