convert_position

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

With zero annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one critical trait: the call is a dry-run unless KITE_MCP_ENABLE_TRADING=true. That is genuinely valuable and non-obvious. However, it omits auth/permission requirements, whether an executed conversion is reversible, and what the dry-run response looks like, leaving significant behavioral gaps for a trading mutation.

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?

Two tight sentences with the core action and its example first, followed by the safety gate. Nothing is redundant and the critical dry-run warning is not buried.

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 7-required-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin. It never clarifies how the fields relate (position_type vs old_product), what the dry-run returns, or what state changes on a real execution, so an agent could construct a call without understanding its effect.

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% across 7 required parameters, so the description must compensate, and it largely does not. The MIS/CNC example hints at old_product and new_product, but position_type (overnight/day), transaction_type, quantity, exchange, and tradingsymbol are unexplained, and the overlap between position_type and old_product is left ambiguous.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (convert an open position's product type) and disambiguates the jargon with a concrete example, moving an intraday MIS position to CNC overnight delivery. No sibling tool performs this action, and the example makes the concept unmistakable.

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 'open position' qualifier implies the precondition, and the MIS/CNC example implies the scenario, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or routing versus alternatives such as modify_order or cancel-and-replace. An agent must infer that this is the correct tool for product-type changes only.

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