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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the description need not restate them. It adds that the target must be an open simulated position and that an API key is required, but says nothing about what happens to unspecified sl/tp values or invalid price ranges.

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 tight sentences with the action and target front-loaded and the prerequisite trailing; no filler or redundancy.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and only partial parameter documentation, the definition is serviceable but thin: it omits the distinction from paper_modify_order and gives no detail on partial updates or failure 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 description coverage is only 25% (only trail_pct is documented), so the description carries extra burden. It names the three concepts (stop-loss, take-profit, trailing stop) that map to sl, tp and trail_pct, but leaves the required id and the null semantics of sl/tp 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 (move) plus the resources it acts on (stop-loss, take-profit, trailing stop) and scopes them to an open simulated position. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the closely named sibling paper_modify_order, which an agent could easily confuse it with.

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 only guidance is a prerequisite ("Requires an API key"); there is no statement of when to reach for this tool versus paper_modify_order or paper_close, nor any exclusion about what kind of position qualifies beyond "open simulated".

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