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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds the mechanism ('cancels and re-places those orders on Hyperliquid'), the auth requirement (api:trade scope), the failure mode (404 when the symbol isn't held), and the error format (venue's reason). This is exactly the additional context the annotations can't convey, and nothing contradicts them.

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 core action and size premise, then layers scope, exclusions, and failure behavior in descending priority. Dense with em-dash parentheticals, but nearly every clause earns its place; slightly heavier than it needs to be for a one-parameter tool.

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?

With no output schema, the description covers the return/error surface ('an error carries the venue's reason'), the permission requirement, and the preconditions for calling. For a single-param mutation on a live venue with destructive annotations, an agent has all it needs to invoke 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 coverage is 0% with a single required parameter named only 'symbol', so the description must carry the semantics — and it does, specifying that symbol must be a position the agent wallet holds and that a miss returns 404. It stops short of giving an expected format (e.g. exchange ticker convention) despite the 48-char limit in 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 (re-sync) and resource (TP/SL orders on one of the agent-wallet's positions) and maps it to a concrete counterpart action ('the Gambit app's Manage-position re-sync'). It also negatively defines the tool ('does not set new prices, does not add TP/SL... and does not change the position'), which cleanly separates it from siblings like propose_trade, confirm_trade, and adjust_margin.

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 ('used after a position was resized'), a strict precondition ('call it only when the user asks'), and three explicit when-not conditions (no price-setting, no adding TP/SL where absent, no position modification). The agent has everything needed to decide between this and the neighbouring order-management tools.

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