drift_closePerpPosition

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'close a position,' omitting details on whether this is destructive, what happens to funds, fees, reversibility, or authorization requirements.

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. It is concise, but perhaps overly brief given the tool's complexity. No unnecessary words present.

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 financial transaction tool with no output schema, the description lacks essential context: what happens on close, return value (e.g., transaction signature), slippage or price impacts, and error conditions. Sibling tools like drift_openPerpPosition may have similar minimalism, but this is insufficient.

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 only 33% (only 'wallet' described). The description adds no explanation for 'marketIndex' or 'subAccountId,' which are critical for identifying the correct position. Users must infer their purpose.

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 'Close a perpetual position on Drift.' clearly states the action (close) and resource (perpetual position on Drift). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like drift_openPerpPosition (open) and drift_getPositions (get).

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, such as when a position should be closed, dependencies (e.g., an existing open position), or prerequisites like wallet permissions.

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