avanza_stoploss_set_batch

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses per-item validation and readback, plus required authorization and confirmation flags, but it does not explain failure behavior, partial success, or the response/return format despite being a mutating operation.

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, no filler, with the main action front-loaded and the prerequisites packed into a compact second sentence. Every clause adds relevant information.

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 tool is a complex batch operation with a nested items schema, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description omits return behavior, partial-failure handling, and definitions of domain jargon like TUI R/W mode. It is not complete enough for an agent to invoke it confidently without external 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains confirm=true and the live-item requirements for strategy_intent and strategy_reason, but leaves account_id, items structure, trigger_value, order_price, volume, and other fields semantically unexplained.

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 action ('Place multiple stop-loss orders') and adds a distinguishing trait ('per-item validation/readback'). This clearly differentiates it from the singular avanza_stoploss_set and paper-order siblings like avanza_paper_stoploss_set.

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 gives clear preconditions for live usage: strategy_intent, strategy_reason, TUI R/W mode, live authorization, and confirm=true. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the live/batch prerequisites provide practical usage context.

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