Reduce margin of futures grid order

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false), yet the description adds substantive context: asynchronous execution, absence of a returned status field, the maxAmount validation, and raised liquidation risk. This is meaningful disclosure beyond the structured fields.

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 action and resource, then layers constraints and warnings in short sentences. The "Weight: 1" line is extraneous but minor; nothing else is wasted.

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 helpfully notes the missing status field, and annotations carry the safety profile, so an agent has enough to invoke it correctly. Only explicit usage/alternative routing is absent.

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 100%, so all three parameters are already documented in the schema. The description only echoes the amount semantics via the maxAmount reference and adds no syntax or format detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ("Transfer margin out of a futures grid order") that clearly separates it from the sibling add_margin tool. It does not explicitly name siblings, but the operation is unambiguous.

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?

It implies the companion validation tool ("Runs the same validation as reduceMarginCheck") and warns "call with care," but gives no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not guidance or prerequisites. Usage must be inferred from the cautionary tone.

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