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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: the `unknown` outcome may mean the order already executed, retrying with a new client_request_id is forbidden, and untrusted-text fields must not be treated as instructions. These are failure-mode and safety disclosures that the readOnly/destructive/idempotent hints cannot convey.

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?

Front-loads the mutation scope, then the failure-mode handling, then the safety warning, in three tight sentences. Slightly dense with two distinct cautions packed together, but nothing is redundant.

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 destructive, open-world mutation with no output schema, the description covers the critical gaps an agent needs: the `unknown` return state, why retries are dangerous, and how to verify before re-acting. It is complete enough to call safely.

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 100%, so all seven parameters are already documented in the schema, including stop_loss/take_profit as absolute prices and client_request_id's reuse semantics. The description's '(absolute prices)' merely echoes what the schema already states, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource with scope: 'Change a pending order's entry price and optionally its stop loss / take profit'. The 'pending order' qualifier cleanly separates it from modify_position, cancel_order, and place_order among its siblings.

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?

Gives a clear precondition (pending orders) and prescribes the exact recovery path when the outcome is `unknown`, naming get_trade_status, get_positions, and get_orders as alternatives to retrying. It stops short of stating when to prefer modify_position or cancel_order, but the core when/when-not is present.

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