change_oco_order_api

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'execute change' without revealing any side effects, permissions, failure conditions, or whether the operation is destructive. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.

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 sentence, very concise. However, this brevity sacrifices essential information needed for correct tool invocation. It is not a model of efficiency because it omits critical 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?

Given the tool's complexity (4 parameters, many siblings, no annotations, no param descriptions), the description is incomplete. It does not define OCO orders, explain the meaning of root_order_id vs client_order_id, or describe expected outcomes. Although an output schema exists, the description fails to provide enough context for an agent to use this tool reliably.

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%, meaning no parameter descriptions exist in the schema. The tool description does not explain any of the four parameters (stop_price, limit_price, root_order_id, client_order_id). While some are self-explanatory for a trading domain, the description adds no semantic value beyond what a user might guess.

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 states the verb 'execute' and resource 'OCO order change' for 'GMO Coin FX', clearly identifying the tool's action and domain. However, it does not distinguish this tool from siblings like change_order_api or change_ifd_order_api, which change other order types. A specific differentiation is missing for a trading context with 13 siblings.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when an OCO order is already active or how it differs from changing non-OCO orders. No prerequisites or context are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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