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

Annotations are all false (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint), providing no positive safety profile, so the description carries the behavioral burden. 'Update' implies mutation but nothing is disclosed about what state changes occur, whether the operation is reversible, what prerequisites exist (an open position), or the effect on the existing call record. This is a write tool with zero behavioral depth.

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 genuinely compact at two sentences with no fluff. However, the second sentence, 'Same qualitative rule as opening one,' does not earn its place — it references an undefined rule and creates more confusion than clarity. Economy without informative content is under-specification, not good structure.

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 6-parameter, 3-required mutation tool with no output schema and all-false annotations, the description is far too thin. It omits the expected output/return behavior, prerequisites (an existing open call), and orientation within the open/book/reposition/close lifecycle that the sibling tools imply. The only lifecycle hint is the cryptic 'same qualitative rule' phrase, which requires the agent to already know fm_open_position.

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 only 33%, and the description itself adds nothing about parameters — it never explains 'lean' or 'rationale', which are documented nowhere. Only position_key and aqua_position_ref have schema-level descriptions. With coverage below 50%, the description was required to compensate but completely fails to do so.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Update your view on an open call as the signal evolves.' The title 'Reposition a call' plus the verb 'update' distinguishes it from lifecycle siblings (fm_open_position, fm_close_position, fm_book_status). However, 'Same qualitative rule as opening one' is cryptic — the referenced rule is never explained, leaving ambiguity for an agent that hasn't seen fm_open_position's definition.

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?

'As the signal evolves' provides an implied trigger condition for using the tool — the agent can infer it should reposition when new information changes the assessment. But the description names no alternatives (e.g., fm_close_position for ending a call, fm_open_position for starting one), gives no exclusions, and the 'same qualitative rule' reference is an opaque pointer rather than actionable guidance.

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