modify_position

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses one genuinely non-obvious rule ('Pass 0 to remove one'), but says nothing about permissions, error behavior on an invalid ticket, or whether both SL and TP may be set independently.

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, front-loaded with the action and followed by the one non-obvious rule. No wasted words.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the definition is adequate but thin — missing units for sl/tp, whether each is independently optional, and failure behavior on a bad ticket.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It partially does: it maps sl/tp to stop loss/take profit and explains the 0-as-removal convention, but leaves the required ticket parameter and the price units/format unaddressed.

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+resource: 'Change stop loss / take profit of an open position.' The scope ('open position', only SL/TP) distinguishes it implicitly from sibling modify_pending_order and close_position, though it doesn't name those 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?

Usage is implied by 'of an open position' (requires an existing open position) but there is no explicit when-to-use, no alternative routing (e.g., vs close_position or modify_pending_order), and no prerequisites such as needing a valid ticket.

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