confirm_risk_limit

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions that confirmation is required after a change, but does not explain what happens when the tool is invoked (e.g., does it finalize the margin adjustment? Are there any side effects?). Lacks details on reversibility, permissions, or error conditions.

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 very concise: two short sentences plus one-liner per parameter. The purpose is front-loaded, and every sentence adds value. No extraneous 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?

For a write tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is somewhat incomplete. It does not clarify what the tool returns or if the confirmation succeeds automatically. It also omits that the risk limit value itself is not a parameter, suggesting the tool confirms a pending state, but this is not explained.

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 has 2 parameters with no descriptions (0% coverage). The description adds meaningful context: category is defined as 'Product type: linear, inverse' and symbol is exemplified as 'e.g., BTCUSDT'. This helps an agent understand the expected values.

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 confirms a new risk limit after a change that triggers margin adjustment. It uses a specific verb (confirm) and resource (risk limit), and distinguishes from the sibling get_risk_limit tool.

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 clear context: use this tool after a risk limit change that triggers margin adjustment. It does not explicitly say when not to use it, but the guidance is sufficient for most cases.

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