alpha_amend_order

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions that the operation is 'faster than cancel + recreate,' which adds useful behavioral context about performance. However, it does not disclose critical details such as required permissions, whether the edit is atomic or reversible, error conditions, or rate limits, leaving 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?

The description is concise and front-loaded, with two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose and a key advantage. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or vague language, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

Given the complexity of a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and a performance hint, but lacks details on behavioral traits, error handling, or return values, which are important for safe and effective use in this context.

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 fully documents all 7 parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by listing the editable fields ('price, quantity, or slippage'), but does not provide additional semantics like unit explanations or constraints. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 clearly states the verb ('Edit'), resource ('existing unfilled Alpha Arcade order'), and scope ('in-place'), specifying what can be changed ('price, quantity, or slippage'). It distinguishes from the sibling 'alpha_cancel_order' by noting it's 'faster than cancel + recreate,' making the purpose specific and differentiated.

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?

The description provides clear context for when to use this tool: for editing unfilled orders in-place, and implies an alternative ('cancel + recreate') without explicitly naming it. However, it lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons with other order-related tools like 'alpha_create_limit_order' or 'alpha_create_market_order,' which could be relevant for order modifications.

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