Prepare conditional order modification

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

The description goes far beyond annotations: it explicitly states 'Nothing reaches the market from this call: it only validates the request and returns a preview plus a confirmation token,' and discloses that the token is single-use and expires in 60 seconds. It also warns that every field is replaced, preventing accidental partial updates. This adds significant behavioral context beyond the destructiveHint annotation.

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?

Seven sentences, each carrying essential info: purpose, replacement semantics, symbol restriction, ID lookup, non-execution, workflow, and token expiry. No fluff or repetition; the description is front-loaded with the core purpose and then systematically adds constraints and instructions. Appropriately detailed for a complex tool.

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 tool's complexity (7 params, nested objects, no output schema), the description covers all necessary context: what to modify, constraints, how to get prerequisites, side effects, and the exact post-approval workflow. The absence of an output schema is compensated by mentioning the preview and confirmation token, which is sufficient for the agent to select and use the tool.

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 coverage is 100%, with each parameter already described in detail (enums, patterns, conditional requirements). The description adds a global rule ('Every field is replaced') that informs parameter usage but doesn't elaborate on individual parameters beyond what the schema provides, so it stays at baseline.

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's first sentence clearly states the tool 'previews a change to an EXISTING conditional order that has not triggered yet' and enumerates modifiable fields (trigger prices, legs, quantity, expiry). This distinguishes it from siblings like toss_prepare_conditional_order (creation) and toss_prepare_conditional_order_cancel (cancellation).

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 usage context: find the ID via toss_get_conditional_orders with status 'OPEN', and explains the symbol cannot be changed, directing to cancel-and-create for that. It also specifies the follow-up step (toss_submit_prepared_order). However, it doesn't explicitly say when to prefer this over toss_prepare_order_modify or other alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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