set_auto_approve

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the default (0 = always ask), the auto-execute condition (green safety plus an existing standing approval), the exception for red flags, the absence of a maximum, and that enforcement is server-side and non-bypassable. It stops short of stating return format, failure behavior, or permission requirements, keeping it below a 5.

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 action and followed by the operating rules in four tight sentences with no filler. The final sentence on server enforcement is slightly rhetorical but does convey real behavioral information.

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 two-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers semantics, defaults, and enforcement boundaries thoroughly. It omits error/permission behavior and the return value, which are the remaining gaps.

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 only 50% (trader_id has no schema description), but the prose compensates: it defines the unit (USD), the default and 0-sentinel behavior, and the open upper bound. trader_id is contextualized as the trader whose policy is being modified.

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?

Starts with a specific verb+resource ('Set the per-trade auto-approve threshold in USD for this trader'), which unambiguously identifies the mutation. No sibling in the list sets an auto-approve threshold, so the tool is not confusable with set_trigger, pause_trading, or the wallet siblings.

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 explains the meaning of the threshold but never states when to use this tool versus alternatives or what preconditions the caller must verify. Usage is implied from the field semantics rather than given as explicit guidance.

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