update_copy_trade

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does surface the critical trait that isChangeStatus also permanently deletes — a genuinely dangerous, non-obvious side effect. However, that same detail is already in the schema descriptions, and nothing is said about auth/session requirements, reversibility of non-delete updates, or rate limits.

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 sentences, zero waste, and the destructive warning is front-loaded immediately after the purpose statement. Nothing could be removed without losing meaning.

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 14-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the highest-risk behavior but omits what a successful update returns, whether fields not supplied are preserved, and whether the caller needs session/auth context. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 the schema already documents all 14 parameters including the enum-like buyMode (1/2) and chainId value. The description adds no parameter detail beyond what the schema provides, 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 (update/delete) and resource (Solana copy trade), which cleanly separates it from create_copy_trade and get_copy_trade_* siblings. It does not explicitly name the near-name sibling update_hl_copy_trade (Hyperliquid), so the Solana-vs-HL disambiguation is left to inference.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance, and no alternative sibling is named. The WARNING implies one usage constraint (only use these flags when permanent deletion is intended), which is implied guidance rather than stated routing.

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