avanza_stoploss_delete

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does meaningfully disclose that live deletion is gated by mode, confirmation, strategy fields, and metadata matching, while dry-run is available without those. It does not fully explain TUI R/W mode, exact-match semantics, or error/return behavior, but it clearly communicates the destructive path's prerequisites.

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 with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the conditions for live deletion are compactly listed without redundancy.

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?

The description covers the most important operational constraints for a destructive tool, but leaves gaps: what TUI R/W mode means, what 'exact match to durable stop metadata' implies, and what a dry-run returns or how failures are reported. With no output schema and no annotations, these are material gaps for an agent deciding whether the tool can be safely invoked.

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 only 29%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning to confirm (dry-run vs live), strategy_intent, and strategy_reason by tying them to live deletion, and hints at stop_loss_id matching via 'exact match to durable stop metadata.' However, account_id and stop_loss_id still lack explicit semantic explanation, and the description does not clarify the enum values or the purpose of the strategy fields.

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 names a specific action (delete) and resource (stop-loss order), and also identifies the dry-run mode. It clearly distinguishes itself from stop-loss creation/editing tools like avanza_stoploss_set and avanza_stoploss_edit.

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 context for when live deletion is possible: TUI R/W mode, confirm=true, strategy_intent, strategy_reason, and exact metadata matching. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the conditions sufficiently guide when the tool can actually perform a live delete versus a dry-run.

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