avanza_stoploss_edit

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It is transparent that editing is implemented as placing a new stop-loss and deleting the old one, and it flags a compliance gate for live MCP placement. Still, it does not explain the behavior of the confirm flag, whether the old stop-loss deletion is immediately destructive, or what happens on dry-run.

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 two sentences with no filler. The core operation is front-loaded, and the live-placement requirement is a separate, valuable addition.

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 mutation tool with 19 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and a conditional live-placement requirement, this description is too sparse. It does not explain how dry-run is triggered, which parameters are required only for live edits, or the implications of the delete-old step, leaving significant gaps for an agent trying to invoke it safely.

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 11%, so the description should compensate, but it only names strategy_intent and strategy_reason without explaining their meaning or enum values. Most critical parameters such as stop_loss_id, account_id, order_book_id, trigger_value, order_price, and volume are left entirely to inference from their names and the schema.

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: dry-run or edit an existing stop-loss, with the mechanism 'place new + delete old' adding useful clarity. It does not explicitly compare itself to sibling tools like avanza_stoploss_set or avanza_stoploss_delete, so it doesn't fully differentiate, but the 'existing stop-loss' phrasing makes the core purpose clear.

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 implies the tool is for editing existing stop-losses, and the live-placement requirement for strategy_intent and strategy_reason gives an important condition. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over avanza_stoploss_set, avanza_stoploss_delete, or open_order_edit, nor does it explain the dry-run vs. live distinction beyond the existence of a confirm-related requirement.

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