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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool adjusts a hedge leg, but it does not explain the impact on the hedge, whether rebalancing occurs, how the other leg is affected, or any side effects. For a mutating tool, this is a significant transparency gap.

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 short, front-loaded with the core purpose, and easy to scan. The action list is useful, though the 'Params:' line largely duplicates information already present in the input schema, which slightly reduces the value of that sentence.

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 mutating tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves out important context: what each parameter represents, what happens after the adjustment, and when this tool should be selected over siblings. It is a minimal summary rather than a complete operating guide for an agent.

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 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameter meaning beyond names. It merely lists 'positionId, action, sizeUsd' with no semantics for positionId or sizeUsd, and the action enum values are already visible in the input schema. This adds minimal value beyond the schema.

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 adjusts one leg of a hedged position, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like open_hedged_position and close_hedged_position. It also enumerates the supported action values, making the tool's scope concrete. However, it doesn't explicitly name or contrast these siblings, so it falls just short of full differentiation.

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 only implied usage context: this is for adjusting one leg of a hedge rather than opening or closing the whole position. It provides no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives like open_hedged_position, close_hedged_position, or set_hedge_protection, and no exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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