ig_update_working_order

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It only states that an order is updated, with no mention of confirmation requirements (e.g., 'confirm' and 'live_confirmation' parameters), side effects, or whether changes are reversible. This is minimal and leaves major behavioral aspects undisclosed.

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, clear sentence with no filler, but it is under-specified for a tool with a complex input schema. It is concise, but not appropriately sized given the tool's operational complexity, leaving significant information unexplained.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description omits essential context such as the meaning of the request object, the confirmation flow, and the relevance of the confirm/live_confirmation fields. With 4 parameters and no annotations, this one-sentence description is completely inadequate to guide correct invocation.

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 contains 4 parameters (deal_id, request, confirm, live_confirmation) with 0% schema description coverage. The description provides no meaning for any parameter, not even the required deal_id or the nested request object, so the parameter semantics are entirely absent.

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 'Update an OTC working order' uses a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('OTC working order'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like ig_create_working_order, ig_cancel_working_order, and ig_update_position. It adds the 'OTC' qualifier, which narrows scope beyond the tool name alone.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to update vs. create or cancel a working order. There are no stated prerequisites, exclusions, or context signals for invocation.

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