update_copy_trade_settings

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the mutation and external-state profile is known. The description adds important behavioral details beyond annotations: it reads the current config first, omitted fields are preserved, and open positions are not resized. 'Never deletes' clarifies that destructiveHint does not imply structural deletion, though auth/session requirements remain implicit in the schema.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and immediately followed by exclusions and update semantics. No filler, and every sentence adds useful information.

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 15-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the critical behavioral context: partial update, non-deletion, non-pausing, and no position resizing. It does not explain authentication requirements or expected return values, but the schema and annotations carry enough weight that these are minor 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 baseline is 3. The description adds crucial semantics not captured by the schema: omitted fields keep current values, making it clear this is a partial update. It also notes open positions are not resized, which affects how copyBuyAmount and related fields should be interpreted.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Change settings of an existing Solana copy trade.' It also explicitly clarifies what the tool does not do ('never deletes and never pauses/resumes'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_copy_trade and pause_copy_trade without needing to open their schemas.

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 provides clear usage context: use for changing settings, not for deletion or pause/resume. The partial-update rule ('omitted fields keep their current values') further guides invocation. It does not explicitly name the alternative 'update_copy_trade' sibling, but the exclusions are sufficient to route most calls correctly.

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