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

Annotations already communicate that this is a mutation (readOnlyHint=false) and not destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description aligns by saying 'Update' and specifying field changes, adding context about which attributes can be changed. It does not disclose response format or side effects, but with annotations present, the behavioral profile is well covered.

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 sentence that immediately uses the verb 'Update' and a specific resource. It lists examples concisely and ends with the required identification, avoiding any 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 straightforward update tool with 8 parameters (1 required), a clear purpose, and adequate schema coverage, the description covers the essential usage. It omits return value specs, but no output schema exists, and the behavior is simple enough that the description suffices.

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 100% schema description coverage, the input schema fully documents all 8 parameters, including types and constraints. The description adds only a human-readable summary of some fields (entry price, quantity, thesis) without additional semantic nuances, so it stays at baseline.

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 begins with 'Update fields on an existing trade' which clearly states a specific verb and resource. It lists concrete fields (entry price, quantity, thesis, notes, emotional state, lesson) and explicitly says to identify the trade by id, distinguishing it from close_trade, delete_trade, and log_trade.

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 gives clear context: it is for modifying an existing trade, not creating, closing, or deleting one. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the phrase 'existing trade' and requirement to identify by id imply appropriate usage. The schema's is_test_trade parameter description mentions delete_trade for removing mistaken entries, but the main description alone lacks explicit alternatives.

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