delete_copy_trade

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, but the description goes well beyond that: it states irreversibility ('Cannot be undone') and, critically, enumerates the side effects that do NOT occur (positions not sold, TP/SL orders not cancelled). That non-effect disclosure is genuinely load-bearing information an agent cannot infer from the annotation.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the irreversible nature and the verb in caps. Every sentence carries distinct information: scope, side-effect boundary, reversibility, and alternative.

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 single-required-parameter destructive tool with full schema coverage and annotations, this covers the gaps that matter: permanence, what survives the delete, and the safer alternative. No output schema is needed since there is no meaningful return to explain.

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 both the copyTradeId provenance ('from get_copy_trade_list') and the accountRef session mechanism are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail, which is acceptable given full schema coverage but earns only the baseline.

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 (PERMANENTLY delete) and a precisely scoped resource (a Solana copy trade configuration), and immediately disambiguates what is NOT touched (positions, TP/SL orders). An agent can distinguish this from pause_copy_trade or delete_hl_copy_trade without reading further.

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?

Explicitly names the alternative for the 'stop copying' intent (pause_copy_trade instead) and states that positions and TP/SL orders must be managed separately, which is a real exclusion condition. Usage routing is fully specified.

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