create_trading_plan

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: the plan is stored in 'prospective memory,' remains active until triggered/expired/cancelled, and has default values for expiry_days and priority. It explains the lifecycle but does not cover error handling, authentication needs, or rate limits, leaving some gaps for a mutation tool.

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 well-structured and appropriately sized. It starts with a high-level purpose, adds behavioral context, and then details parameters in a bullet-like format. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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 complexity (6 parameters, mutation operation) and no annotations, the description is largely complete: it covers purpose, behavior, and parameters. With an output schema present, return values need not be explained. However, it could benefit from more on error cases or prerequisites, slightly reducing completeness for a creation 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate fully. It adds substantial meaning beyond the schema: each parameter is explained with examples (e.g., trigger_type as 'market_condition', trigger_condition as JSON string), default values are noted, and reasoning is described as 'Why this plan was created.' This provides clear semantics for all 6 parameters.

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 creates a 'prospective trading plan that activates when conditions are met' and 'stores a rule-based plan in prospective memory.' It specifies the verb ('create'), resource ('trading plan'), and distinguishes from siblings like 'check_active_plans' or 'store_trade_memory' by focusing on future-triggered plans rather than current state or past trades.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: to create plans that 'stay active until triggered, expired, or manually cancelled.' It implicitly distinguishes from siblings by not being for checking existing plans or storing past trades. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when NOT to use it or named alternatives, such as when immediate action is needed versus planning.

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