upgrade_to_margin

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. 'Upgrade' implies a mutation that changes account type, but it doesn't disclose critical traits like permission requirements, whether it's reversible (e.g., via 'reset_portfolio'), rate limits, or what happens post-upgrade (e.g., margin calls, trading capabilities). This leaves significant gaps for safe agent invocation.

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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words—it directly states the tool's purpose without fluff. It's appropriately sized for a simple action and front-loaded with the core functionality.

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 complexity of a financial mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral risks (e.g., margin requirements, irreversible changes), expected outcomes, or error conditions, which are crucial for an agent to use this tool safely and effectively in context with siblings like trading and account management tools.

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 100%, so parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying the upgrade action requires a portfolio and agreement, which the schema already covers with 'portfolioId' and 'marginAgreement'. Thus, it meets the baseline but doesn't enhance understanding.

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 action ('upgrade') and target ('portfolio to margin account'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'create_portfolio' or 'update_account' in terms of account type changes, leaving room for ambiguity about when this specific upgrade is needed versus other account modifications.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., existing portfolio, account status), exclusions (e.g., cannot upgrade if already margin), or related tools like 'create_portfolio' for initial setup or 'update_account' for other modifications.

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