avanza_stoploss_set

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It adds meaningful constraints by specifying that live placement requires TUI R/W mode and specific confirm/strategy fields, implying dry-run otherwise. It does not explain what dry-run returns, whether any state changes occur in dry-run, or other side effects and authorization details.

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 short sentences, each adds a distinct point: what the tool does and what live placement requires. No filler or repetition of schema defaults, and the main purpose is front-loaded.

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?

Despite 18 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description provides none of the following: what a dry-run result contains, how trigger and order price types are interpreted, valid_until/order_valid_days semantics, or how this tool relates to paper/batch/edit stop-loss siblings. It is inadequate for correct invocation in most non-trivial scenarios.

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%, but the description only adds semantics for confirm, strategy_intent, and strategy_reason by tying them to the live-placement condition. The many other parameters (trigger_value, order_price, volume, trigger_type, valid_until, etc.) receive no semantic explanation, so agents must guess their meaning and valid combinations.

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 the core operation (set a stop-loss) and its two modes (dry-run or live placement), using the specific verb 'place' with the resource 'stop-loss order'. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from close siblings like avanza_stoploss_set_batch, avanza_stoploss_edit, or avanza_paper_stoploss_set, so the agent must infer which tool fits the current intent.

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 gives an explicit precondition for live placement: TUI R/W mode, confirm=true, strategy_intent, and strategy_reason, which tells the agent how to trigger live versus dry-run. It does not name alternative tools or say when not to use this tool, so routing guidance remains partial.

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