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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it flags REAL MONEY, explains that removing margin pushes the liquidation price toward the market, states position size is unchanged, and documents error semantics (404 for unheld symbol, 409 not_isolated, venue reason on error). The destructiveHint annotation is corroborated and enriched with concrete consequences.

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-loaded with the core action and sign convention, then layered with risk, approval, and error details. Dense but each sentence carries unique, actionable information; no filler.

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 2-param mutation with no output schema, the description covers scope requirements, safety implications, approval workflow, and error behavior, leaving nothing an agent needs missing in order to call 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?

With only 50% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining the positive/negative sign convention for margin_usd and adding meaning to symbol (must be an agent-wallet position, 404/409 failure modes). It adds value beyond the schema's bare type declaration for symbol.

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 precise verb+resource: add or remove isolated margin on the agent's own agent-wallet position. It scopes the operation to 'YOUR agent-wallet positions,' distinguishing it from any cross-margin or non-wallet context without the agent needing another tool's 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?

Clearly establishes context: requires api:trade scope, only applies to positions the agent wallet holds, and demands human approval before calling. It does not name an alternative tool, but there is no obvious sibling to route against, so the guidance is close to complete.

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