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

Goes well past the annotations: it discloses that new terms re-run every check of a new order, that a limit order is replaced and loses its queue place while a trigger entry is rewritten, and that trade:execute scope is required. The queue-position loss is exactly the kind of non-obvious side effect the destructiveHint=false flag alone would not convey, and it is consistent with idempotentHint=false.

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?

Dense and front-loaded: purpose first, then exclusions, then inputs, then permission caveat, then the natural next call. The telegraphic, colon-chained style ("Inputs:", "Next:") packs a lot but forces the reader to parse fragments rather than sentences, which slightly hurts readability.

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 7-parameter mutation with an output schema present, everything an agent needs is covered: identity, scope, required scope, the non-destructive replacement behavior, an approval-workflow fallback, and a follow-up call. Return values are correctly left to the output schema.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds partial-update semantics — only "what changes" is supplied, and the new terms are validated like a fresh order — which explains why price/size/stop_loss/take_profit are optional and nullable. It does not add format or unit detail beyond the schema, but the update semantics are a genuine semantic contribution.

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 (change price/size/stop-loss/take-profit of an unfilled entry) plus the exact object scope: limit order or trigger entry. It also names what it is not — a held position's stop or take-profit — which separates it from tighten_stop_loss and set_take_profits without opening either 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?

Gives an explicit trigger condition ("Use when the user moves an entry"), two explicit exclusions with the correct sibling named for each, and an alternative path when approval workflows block execution (cancel and preview again). Nothing about when to reach for this tool versus a sibling is left to inference.

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