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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does add two useful facts — the triggers are reduce-only and paper mode executes immediately — but the mode contrast is left dangling (what does live mode do? queue? require confirmation?), and nothing is said about permissions, reversibility, or interaction with existing TP/SL.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded. The second sentence is ambiguous phrasing ('Paper executes immediately') that costs a little clarity for its brevity.

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 three-parameter trading mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thinner than ideal: no return values, no failure modes, no live-vs-paper semantics. It does convey enough for an agent to know broadly what the tool is for, but not enough to call it safely in all modes.

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 0%, so the description must explain all three parameters and does not. It implies tp and sl are take-profit and stop-loss prices, but nothing confirms units, relationship to entry price, required pairing, and the required `market` parameter is entirely unexplained.

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?

States a specific verb (attach) and resource (reduce-only TP/SL triggers on an open position), which reads clearly and distinguishes it from order-placement siblings like place_order or submit_order. It stops short of explicitly naming a sibling it differs from, and 'post-hoc' is doing unstated work about applicability.

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?

'Post-hoc ... to an open position' implies the precondition of an existing position, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus close_position or place_order, no note on prerequisites, and no guidance on what happens if the position already has triggers. An agent must infer all routing decisions.

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