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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, idempotent=true and openWorld=true; the description adds real context on top: what an `unknown` outcome means and the correct recovery sequence. It still omits auth/permission requirements and whether replacing a stop modifies or adds to existing orders.

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, front-loaded with the primary action, followed by the failure-mode rule and a security note. Every clause carries operational weight; the untrusted-text warning is generic but relevant given openWorldHint.

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?

Covers the critical ambiguity for a destructive, idempotent mutation with no output schema: the ambiguous 'unknown' result and how to reconcile it. Only auth requirements and existing-vs-replacing order semantics are left unaddressed.

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 coverage is 100%, so parameters are already well documented, including that 0 removes the level and how client_request_id deduplicates. The description only restates the absolute-price constraint and links client_request_id to the retry warning, so it adds little 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?

States a specific verb (Change) plus the exact resource (stop loss and/or take profit of an open position) and constrains to absolute prices. The 'open position' scope separates it from modify_order and close_position without needing the schema.

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 failure-path guidance is explicit and valuable (on `unknown`, never retry with a new client_request_id; call get_trade_status and get_positions/get_orders first), but there is no guidance on when to choose this over modify_order, close_position, or cancel_order when several could apply.

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