ig_update_position

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It does warn that "This changes account risk," which is a notable side effect. However, it does not mention whether confirmation is required, whether changes are reversible, what happens to existing stops/limits, or any other operational details. The schema includes confirm and live_confirmation fields, but the description remains silent on these aspects, leaving significant behavioral gaps.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose. The first sentence states the action, and the second adds a meaningful risk warning. There is no fluff or repetition, making it highly 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?

The tool is part of a complex trading API with multiple related operations (create, close, update working orders). The description is minimal and does not explain how to construct the request, what OTC means in this context, or what parameters are required for successful execution. Even though an output schema exists, the input schema's nested request object is poorly documented, and the description does not compensate for the intricate domain. The lack of guidance makes the tool difficult to invoke correctly without external knowledge.

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, meaning the description adds almost no parameter-level detail. It mentions "stops or limits," which loosely hints at what the request object should contain, but it does not explain what deal_id refers to, what the request object structure should be, or how confirm/live_confirmation are used. Given the nested request object with additionalProperties, the description fails to compensate for the schema's opacity.

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 action: "Update an OTC position's stops or limits." It identifies a specific verb (update), resource (OTC position), and attributes (stops or limits), which distinguishes it from creating or closing positions. The additional sentence "This changes account risk" reinforces its purpose as a risk-modifying operation.

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 does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ig_create_position, ig_close_position, or ig_update_working_order. It provides no prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual guidance beyond the basic action. Without explicit alternatives or conditions, the agent is left to infer usage solely from the tool name and sibling list.

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