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

The description goes beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint: false, destructiveHint: true) by disclosing critical behavioral nuances: a stop move only changes the current stop used by the watchdog, while realized R remains tied to the initial stop; correct_entry=true resets the R basis and this is disclosed in the response; and asset/side are immutable. These details are not available from annotations alone.

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 information-dense yet well-structured. It starts with the core action, then proceeds to critical caveats (R basis, correct_entry, asset/side restriction) in a logical order. Every sentence adds value, with no filler or repetition.

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 complex mutation tool with 8 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the most important behavioral aspects: the R calculation semantics, correct_entry behavior, and the immutability of asset/side. However, it omits the 'entry' parameter entirely, leaving its meaning and usage unexplained. Given the tool's complexity and absence of output schema, this is a notable gap, but overall the description is quite comprehensive.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the burden of explaining parameters. It clearly explains correct_entry and the stop behavior, and lists size_usd/leverage/thesis as amendable. However, the 'entry' parameter is entirely missing from the description, and target/leverage/size_usd receive no semantic detail beyond being listed. This partial coverage leaves gaps for a few 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's primary action: 'Amend an OPEN journal trade by trade_id' with specific amendable fields (stop, target, size_usd, leverage, thesis). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like log_trade and void_trade by focusing on modification of existing trades, and explicitly notes the non-amendable asset/side, directing users to void and re-log.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool: to amend an open trade's stop/target/size/leverage/thesis. It also gives a clear exclusion and alternative: 'asset/side can't be amended — void and re-log for that.' Additionally, it conditions the use of correct_entry=true for genuine fat-finger corrections, explaining when that flag is appropriate.

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