stock_modify_order

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 behavioral disclosure. It does not mention irreversibility, required permissions, side effects on matched/current quantities, or what 'modification result' means. The only behavioral hint is the modify_type parameter, but that is parameter semantics, not tool behavior.

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 well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, an Args list with one line per parameter, and a Returns line. It is reasonably concise and front-loaded with the key purpose. Some parameter lines are tautological, but the overall length is appropriate for a 16-parameter tool.

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 (16 parameters, 8 required), the description lacks critical context: no usage scenarios, no behavioral expectations, no error or success conditions. The Returns line is vague ('Modification result'). While an output schema may exist, the description still fails to provide enough guidance for correct tool selection and invocation without additional context.

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 must compensate. It lists all 16 parameters and adds minimal meaning for some (e.g., buy_sell: 'Buy (1) or Sell (2)', modify_type: '0=Quantity, 2=Price', new_quantity: '0 to keep unchanged'). However, many entries merely restate the parameter name (e.g., 'condition: Order condition', 'pre_order: Pre-order flag') without providing meaningful semantics, leaving the agent to infer from the schema enums.

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 opens with a clear, specific verb+resource: 'Modify an existing stock order.' This distinctly differentiates it from sibling tools like stock_new_order, stock_cancel_order, and stock_query_order. The purpose is 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios like changing price or quantity on an open order, nor does it note exclusions (e.g., use stock_cancel_order for full cancellation). The description only states the operation without context.

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