Prepare order modification

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

The description states 'Nothing reaches the market from this call: it only validates the request and returns a preview plus a confirmation token,' but the annotations declare destructiveHint: true. This is a direct contradiction: the tool is described as non-destructive while the annotation implies destructive effects. No other behavioral traits beyond the contradictory statement are disclosed.

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 a single, focused paragraph of four sentences. It front-loads the main purpose, then covers prerequisites, alternatives, side effects, and next steps without redundancy or filler.

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 preparation tool with no output schema, the description covers the core workflow: validation, preview, token, expiry, and submission. It doesn't describe the preview's contents or return format, but it's sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's role in the order modification process.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage of parameter meanings, including conditional requirements. The description adds a little context (e.g., 'only the listed fields change,' 'Find the orderId with toss_get_orders'), but these are minor additions. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool previews a change to an existing open regular order, specifying the fields (quantity, price, order type). It also distinguishes from the sibling tool toss_prepare_conditional_order_modify by explicitly saying to use that for conditional orders.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: find orderId via toss_get_orders with status 'OPEN', use a different tool for conditional orders, and follow the workflow of showing the preview, obtaining approval, then submitting via toss_submit_prepared_order. This clearly directs the agent.

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