assign_split_to_lot

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It explains the purpose and workflow but does not state what happens on success/failure, whether the operation is reversible, whether it can be called multiple times on the same split, or if it requires specific account types. For a state-mutating action with no annotation coverage, this is a meaningful gap.

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 with a concise one-line summary, an Args section, and a three-step workflow example. The workflow is genuinely useful and earns its space. Slightly longer than strictly necessary but organized efficiently.

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?

With 2 simple parameters, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema present, the description covers the essential workflow adequately. It explains the sequencing and parameter origins. However, absence of annotations for a state-mutating action and lack of detail on integrity constraints (e.g., can a split only be assigned once?) leave moderate gaps for a financially consequential operation.

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% and both parameters are explicitly described in the schema (32-char hex or 8+ char prefix). The description adds the context that split_guid comes 'from transaction's investment account' and clarifies that both accept prefixes, which is minor value beyond schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents the parameters thoroughly.

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 'Assign a transaction split to a lot' and the resource (split→lot linkage for cost basis tracking). It includes a workflow example showing how it fits into a three-step process, which strongly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_lot and close_lot.

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 explicitly states when to use ('Use after creating a buy/sell transaction to link the investment account split to its lot') and provides a concrete numbered workflow showing the sequence of create_lot → create_transaction → assign_split_to_lot. No explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but the guidance is clear and actionable.

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