order_modify

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It reveals the default dry-run mode and prerequisites for execution, but omits behavioral details such as whether modifications are partial or full replacements, error handling, or side effects. The impact of the 'request' parameter is unclear.

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 very concise, consisting of a single sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose and key constraints. However, it could be slightly more structured without adding length, such as separating the dry-run note from the execution requirements.

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 (5 parameters, nested 'request' object, no output schema), the description lacks completeness. It fails to explain the structure of the 'request' object, expected inputs, return values, or error conditions, leaving the agent underinformed for correct invocation.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description only adds meaning for the 'dryRun' parameter by stating the default. Other critical parameters like 'orderId', 'request', 'accountSeq', and 'confirmation' are left undefined, providing minimal value beyond their names.

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 tool's purpose as modifying an order, with a specific verb and resource. The name 'order_modify' and the verb 'modify' differentiate it from sibling tools like order_create, order_cancel, etc., which have distinct verbs.

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 usage context by noting the default dry-run behavior and the requirements for real execution (e.g., ENABLE_TRADING, dryRun=false, confirmation). However, it does not explicitly guide the agent on when to use this tool versus alternatives like order_validate or order_preview.

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