update_hl_copy_trade

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one high-value trait: both isDelete and isChangeStatus permanently delete. However, it omits auth requirements, reversibility of the non-delete field updates, and whether the required fields must still be supplied on delete — significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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, no waste, and the purpose is front-loaded ahead of the destructive-operation warning. Everything written earns its place.

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 13-parameter mutation tool with 10 required fields, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too thin. It does not clarify the odd case of 10 required params coexisting with an optional delete flag, nor what a successful update/delete returns or affects.

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 92%, so the schema already documents nearly every parameter, including the isDelete/isChangeStatus deletion semantics. The description's warning reinforces but does not extend that information, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clear verb pair (update/delete) and a specific resource ('HL perp copy trade'), which distinguishes it from the generic sibling update_copy_trade. It stops short of explicitly naming that sibling, so the differentiation is implied by the 'HL' prefix rather than called out.

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 guidance on when to update versus when to delete, no prerequisites, and no alternatives named among the many copy-trade siblings (create_hl_copy_trade, update_copy_trade, get_hl_copy_trade_list). The warning is behavioral, not usage-routing.

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