Request Environment Change

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

Annotations indicate openWorldHint (external side effects) and destructiveHint false; the description goes beyond these by explaining that the tool sends a message via Telegram, returns an approval_id for polling, and does not directly apply the change. It also discloses that safety locks will be enabled, providing meaningful behavioral context not present in the annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded, stating the core action in the first sentence and following with essential workflow steps. Every sentence adds value, with no filler or repetition of schema details.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not detail return values, but it does mention the approval_id and the polling step. It covers the key workflow and safety implications, though it omits potential error conditions or prerequisites such as operator availability. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 explain parameters. It clarifies target_env by mentioning 'live' and 'paper' environments, but it does not explicitly define the allowed values or that the parameter is required. The reason parameter is not explained at all, leaving ambiguity about its purpose or format.

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 tool's purpose: sending a request to an operator via Telegram to switch the IBKR connection between live and paper environments. It distinguishes itself from related tools like ibkr_execute_environment_change by explicitly noting that this tool only requests the change and does not apply it.

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 explicit guidance on the workflow: after requesting, poll ibkr_check_approval_status until resolved, then use ibkr_execute_environment_change with the approval_id to apply the change. It also mentions the safety locks that will be engaged, giving clear context for when this tool should be used.

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