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

Annotations already mark this as destructive and non-read-only, and the description adds valuable behavioral context by stating that existing TP/SL triggers are replaced. This goes beyond the annotation by specifying exactly what gets overwritten, which is particularly useful for a mutation tool.

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 short sentences carry all essential information: when to use the tool and what behavioral side effect to expect. There is no fluff or repetition of schema details, and the most important usage guidance is front-loaded.

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 is complete for the core use case: it states the trigger condition, the action, and the destructive overwrite behavior. It could additionally clarify return behavior or what happens when only one of stop_loss or take_profit is provided, but the schema and annotations cover enough that an agent can invoke it correctly.

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 the parameters are already well documented in the input schema. The description does not add significant parameter-level detail, but it does reinforce that stop_loss and take_profit are trigger prices on an open position. This meets the baseline for fully covered schemas.

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 states a specific action ('set or update take-profit / stop-loss') on a specific resource ('open Hyperliquid position'), and adds the defining behavior 'replaces any existing TP/SL triggers'. This makes it clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like place_order or close_position without needing to open their schemas.

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 gives an explicit trigger condition: 'Use this when the user asks to set or update take-profit / stop-loss on an open Hyperliquid position.' It lacks an explicit when-not-to-use or mention of alternatives, but the clear scope is sufficient for an agent to route correctly in most cases.

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