portfolio_remove_position

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses core behavior (removes shares, optional entire position) but does not mention side effects, prerequisites (e.g., position existence), or whether the operation is destructive. Adequate but not detailed.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no redundancy. Every sentence adds value: purpose, general behavior, conditional detail. Highly efficient.

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 removal tool with output schema present, the description covers core functionality. Lacks info on error conditions or reversibility, but given schema covers return values and schema coverage is high, it is reasonably complete.

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 the description adds value by explaining the behavior of the nullable 'shares' parameter (if null, remove entire position). Other parameters are well-documented in schema, so description provides marginal extra meaning.

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 removes shares from a portfolio position, distinguishing it from sibling tools like add_portfolio_position or portfolio_clear_portfolio. It specifies the verb 'remove' and the resource 'position', and clarifies the optional share count behavior.

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 conditional guidance (remove entire position if shares omitted) but does not explicitly contrast with other removal methods or state when to use this tool over portfolio_clear_portfolio or similar. Usage context is implied rather than explicit.

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