delete_gtt

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it does surface the most important trait for a destructive tool: it is a no-op dry-run unless KITE_MCP_ENABLE_TRADING=true. It omits what a dry-run response looks like, whether deletion is reversible, and what happens if the trigger_id does not exist, so it stops short of full transparency.

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 first and the safety gate second. No filler and nothing 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 destructive, annotation-free mutation tool with no output schema, purpose and the trading-enable gate are covered, but irreversibility, failure behavior, and the meaning of the required trigger_id are not. An agent can call it, but with residual uncertainty about side effects.

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?

The single parameter trigger_id has 0% schema description coverage and is never mentioned in the description. The agent must infer from the name alone that it is the GTT trigger identifier, and nothing explains its format or provenance (e.g. from get_gtts).

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?

"Delete (cancel) a GTT order" gives a specific verb plus resource and clarifies that delete means cancel here. The GTT qualifier implicitly separates it from cancel_order/cancel_mf_order, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 dry-run/enable-flag sentence tells the agent the real precondition for an actual deletion, which is useful usage context. It never states when to use this versus modify_gtt or cancel_order, so the choice between GTT management tools is left to inference.

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