update_position

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 notes the confirm=true requirement, which is a useful prerequisite, but it does not explain the nature of the update (e.g., immediate vs. pending), potential side effects, or whether destructive changes are involved. The description is too sparse to adequately inform an agent about the tool's behavior.

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 two short sentences and efficiently communicates the core action and one critical prerequisite. It is not overly verbose, and every word serves a purpose, though it is less structured than more informative descriptions.

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 has a nested update object, no annotations, and a low schema-coverage description. Although an output schema exists, the description lacks essential context about input requirements (deal_id, update structure) and the mutation semantics. It is not complete enough to ensure an agent can use the tool correctly.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It loosely ties the update object to 'stops/limits' and highlights confirm=true, but it does not explain deal_id, the structure of the update object, or the meaning of confirm beyond a boolean. Given the nested update object allows additionalProperties, the lack of parameter detail is a significant gap.

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 verb 'update,' the resource 'OTC position,' and the specific scope 'stops/limits.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_working_order, which targets working orders rather than positions. The action and target are unambiguous.

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 indicates the tool is used to modify stops/limits on OTC positions, and it explicitly warns that confirm=true is required. However, it does not mention when to use this vs. alternative tools (e.g., close_position or create_position), nor any exclusions or conditions beyond the confirmation requirement. This gives clear context but no comparative guidance.

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