close_position

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Close') but doesn't clarify if this is a destructive mutation, requires specific permissions, has side effects (e.g., affecting account balance), or what happens on success/failure. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely modifies state.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste—it directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

Given the complexity of a likely state-modifying operation (closing a position), the description is incomplete. With no annotations, no output schema, and minimal behavioral context, it fails to address key aspects like what the tool returns, error conditions, or dependencies on other tools (e.g., needing an open position from 'get_positions').

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'ticket' parameter documented as 'Position ticket number'. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this, such as explaining what a ticket number is or where to find it. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the action ('Close') and target ('an open position'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_positions' or 'place_order' in terms of when to use each, which prevents a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'place_order' (which might handle closing) or 'get_positions' (which lists positions). There's no mention of prerequisites, such as needing an open position to close, or exclusions for when not to use it.

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