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

No annotations are provided, and the description omits side effects, permissions, irreversibility, or return behavior. As a mutation tool, it should disclose whether thresholds are replaced or merged, and what response the caller can expect.

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 succinct, using two clear sentences. The first lists the affected fields, and the second summarizes the parameters. It avoids unnecessary verbosity while conveying the essential information.

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?

The description lacks context about the expected output, error handling, or any preconditions (e.g., position must exist and be open). Given the presence of many sibling tools with overlapping functionality, it does not provide enough information to decide when this tool is the best choice versus others like adjust_hedge or set_sl_tp.

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?

The description lists the threshold parameter names, which are somewhat self-explanatory (e.g., slPct suggests stop loss percentage), and clarifies that only positionId is required. However, it does not explain units, allowed ranges, or the meaning of terms like maxBasisDeviationPct or marginAlertPct, so the agent must infer semantics from names alone.

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's purpose: updating protection thresholds of an open position. It enumerates the specific threshold fields (slPct, tpPct, maxBasisDeviationPct, marginAlertPct, autoTopUpUsd), distinguishing it from simpler stop-loss/take-profit tools like set_sl_tp.

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 notes 'any threshold' implies partial updates, but it does not explicitly indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives such as open_hedged_position, adjust_hedge, or set_sl_tp. It lacks direct guidance on prerequisites or when not to use this tool.

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