set_allocations

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

Annotations indicate this is a writing, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds that schema validation failure triggers auto-rollback, which is a useful behavioral detail. However, it does not elaborate on success behavior, side effects, or required permissions.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. Every word adds value, with no redundancy.

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 tool's mutation nature, the description is too brief. It lacks details on error handling beyond rollback, input ranges, or state changes. Though an output schema exists, the description does not address the tool's impact or post-conditions.

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 has two parameters with 0% additional description coverage. The description adds a critical constraint that their sum must be ≈1, providing meaning beyond the schema. However, individual parameter purposes (e.g., format or units) remain unclear.

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 verb '改变' (change) and the resource '股票/现金目标配比' (stock/cash target allocation), effectively communicating the tool's purpose. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools which focus on decisions, deposits, or individual transactions.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions a constraint (sum ≈1) but does not explain prerequisites, context, or scenarios where this tool is appropriate.

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