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

Annotations already declare it as a non-read-only, non-destructive mutation, but the description adds no behavioral context of its own. It does not say whether this is a full replacement of the bot config, what happens to fields omitted from the body, whether permissions are required, or what the response returns.

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?

Very short and front-loaded with the verb+resource, which is good, but the trailing 'PUT /api/v2/bot/signal/cex/{id}' adds little for an agent that already has the tool name and schema. It is efficient but under-specified rather than tight.

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 taking a required 11-field nested body, with no output schema to explain results, the description is far too thin. It omits update semantics, required-field implications, and return behavior, leaving the agent to infer almost everything from structured fields.

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?

Top-level schema coverage is 0%: the 'id' path parameter and the nested 'body' object are undocumented at that level, and the description supplies nothing to compensate. The inner body properties do carry schema descriptions, which saves this from a 1, but the description itself contributes zero parameter meaning.

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 clear verb+resource ('Update CEX signal bot') and confirms the CEX variant via the endpoint path, so the agent knows this mutates a CEX signal bot rather than a DEX or prediction one. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the close sibling put_bot_signal_cex_id_status or say which fields are updatable.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is given: nothing tells the agent when to call this full update versus put_bot_signal_cex_id_status, or what preconditions (existing bot, valid API/webhook ids) must hold. The only implicit signal is the HTTP verb in the path.

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