place_order

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

Without annotations, the description adds value by disclosing HTTP communication with local ControlServer, env var requirements, and dry-run behavior. However, it doesn't cover error handling, rate limits, or response behavior, leaving some gaps.

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?

Four sentences, each adding value with no redundancy. The key actions and constraints are 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?

The description covers architecture, authentication, dry-run behavior, and approval flow for an order placement tool with 9 parameters. Missing explicit return value or error cases, but the complexity is adequately handled.

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 67%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add further meaning to parameters like symbol or qty beyond what the schema provides, but it does explain the role of dry_run and approve_token in context.

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 places an order via the flox engine, specifying the resource (order) and verb (place). It differentiates from sibling tools like cancel_all and cancel_order by focusing on order entry, and adds specificity with 'manual hedges or operator-driven order entry'.

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 default dry_run=true and the need for approve_token in live scope, guiding when to use the tool. It provides context but does not explicitly list alternatives or when not to use it, though sibling context helps.

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