set_risk_parameters

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the write nature ('WRITE: changes risk parameters on a live position') and a prerequisite condition. It does not detail side effects or rate limits, but the main behavioral traits are transparent.

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 three sentences long, front-loaded with the purpose, then breaking down parameter behavior, then stating the write operation and requirement. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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?

For a mutation tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what the tool does, how to use the parameters (clear vs. omit), and a prerequisite. It could mention the return format but is otherwise complete.

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%, so the description adds meaning: it explains that thresholds have type, value, and optional trailing fields, and clarifies null vs. omit behavior. This goes beyond the schema's structural definitions.

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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: 'Set or update stop-loss / take-profit on an existing Pear Protocol position.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like adjust_leverage or close_position.

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 provides usage context: 'Pass null to clear a field; omit it to leave unchanged.' and 'Requires PEAR_TRADE_ENABLED=true.' It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, but the guidelines are clear for the intended use case.

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