ig_create_working_order

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It states the core action (create) but omits important behavioral traits such as whether confirmation is required, how the timezone affects execution, what happens to the working order when opened, or how errors are surfaced. The mention of 'later' implies delayed execution, but no details on reliability or side effects.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It efficiently conveys the primary purpose, though its brevity leaves critical details absent; nonetheless, for what it does contain, it is concise and well-structured.

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 (4 parameters, a nested request object, an output schema, and many siblings), the description is severely under-specified. It does not explain the request payload, timezone format, confirmation semantics, or return value, leaving the agent unable to invoke the tool reliably.

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%, and the description does not compensate. It provides no meaning for 'request', 'timezone', 'confirm', or 'live_confirmation', nor does it explain the expected structure of the 'request' object. An agent cannot correctly construct the required parameters from the description alone.

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 uses a specific verb ('Create') and identifies the exact resource ('OTC working order'), clarifying its deferred execution purpose ('can open a leveraged position later'). This distinguishes it clearly from sibling tools like ig_create_position, which executes immediately, and ig_update_working_order or ig_cancel_working_order.

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 implies when to use the tool: to place a working order that will later become a leveraged position, rather than an immediate position. However, it does not explicitly state exclusions or alternatives, and no guidance is given on conditions like when a working order would be preferable or prerequisites like account permissions.

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