save_thesis

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

With no annotations, the description appropriately discloses the mutating nature ('Persist (create or update)') and a key behavioral detail: 'Upserts by uppercased symbol'. It also situates the action in a workflow. It could add what happens to existing thesis history on update, but the core side-effect and normalization behavior are clearly stated.

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?

Two tightly written sentences with no filler. The action and subject are front-loaded, followed by the schemas-relevant content and then the timing guidance. Every clause 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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it defines the data shape, the persistence behavior, the symbol normalization, and the intended workflow context. It does not describe return values or error cases, but these are less critical for a straightforward upsert tool.

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 input schema already covers the single 'thesis' parameter thoroughly, including its nested structure and example fields, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds some context around 'falsifiers' and symbol uppercasing, but does not need to compensate for missing schema information. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Persist'), names the resource ('a symbol's investment thesis'), and explains exactly what the thesis contains ('claims made at BUY time plus concrete, checkable falsifiers'). It also references check_thesis and mentions the post-BUY workflow, which helps distinguish it from decision-logging and thesis-checking siblings.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'call this right after log_decision on a BUY'. It also explains the purpose of that timing ('so the thesis can later be checked against fresh data'). It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools beyond check_thesis, so it falls just short of a 5.

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