update_order

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full behavioral burden. It says the tool mutates or cancels an order but omits whether changes are reversible, what permissions/session keys are needed, what happens to unspecified fields, or whether the operation fails silently. The one strong detail, that isDelete cancels the order, duplicates the schema field description.

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, front-loaded with the core action and immediately followed by the delete-mode instruction. No filler.

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?

Adequate but thin for a 10-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema. An agent knows the tool can update or cancel an order but lacks detail on permissions, side effects, and return behavior to use it confidently.

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 100%, so every parameter already has a description and the baseline is 3. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema (e.g., no explanation of how amount, triggerPrice, lossPercent and profitPercent interact or restrictions beyond 'buy orders only').

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 or delete) and resource (an existing limit order), with the dual-mode nature made concrete by isDelete=true. It does not name or contrast with siblings like direct_cancel_order or cancel_perp_order, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implicitly conveyed by the two modes (modify vs cancel), but there is no guidance on when to use this versus direct_cancel_order or the limit_buy/limit_sell flow, nor any statement of prerequisites like sign-in or apiKey acquisition. Minimum viable guidance only.

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