ig_update_position

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states a key consequence ('This changes account risk'), which adds transparency about the tool's impact. However, it does not disclose other behavioral traits such as whether confirmation is required, how the request object is structured, or what happens on failure. Partial disclosure is present.

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 action and resource. Every word contributes value; 'This changes account risk' adds context without redundancy. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simple purpose.

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 (5 parameters, nested object, output schema), the description is too sparse. It omits essential details about the request structure, the role of timezone, confirmation behavior, and how this tool fits with sibling tools. While an output schema exists, it does not compensate for missing parameter semantics and usage guidance. The description is insufficient for an agent to correctly invoke the tool in varied scenarios.

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 5 parameters with no descriptions (0% coverage). The description does not mention any parameters or add meaning to deal_id, request, timezone, confirm, or live_confirmation. It entirely fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions, leaving the agent without guidance on how to populate the request object or the purpose of the timezone field.

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 identifies the action ('Update') and the specific resource ('an OTC position's stops or limits'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like ig_close_position and ig_create_position. It also hints at the trading context, making the tool's function 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 implies usage: use when you need to modify stops or limits on an OTC position. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives like ig_update_working_order for working orders. The context is clear but lacks exclusions or comparative guidance.

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