modify_gtt

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the tool defaults to dry-run unless KITE_MCP_ENABLE_TRADING=true, which is important safety context, but it omits permissions, reversibility, mutation semantics, and what dry-run actually returns.

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 two short sentences, front-loads the purpose, and includes the critical dry-run caveat. Every sentence earns its place.

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 seven-parameter, all-required GTT mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It explains the dry-run gate but does not clarify required order structure, trigger semantics, or expected results.

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 43%, covering last_price, trigger_type, and trigger_values. The description adds no parameter semantics for trigger_id, tradingsymbol, exchange, or the nested orders structure, leaving several required fields unexplained beyond schema types and enums.

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 a specific verb and resource: "Modify an existing GTT order." This distinguishes it from sibling tools such as place_gtt, delete_gtt, and get_gtt, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 does not explain when to use modify_gtt versus place_gtt, delete_gtt, or modify_order. The dry-run note is a behavioral condition, not usage guidance or an alternative-selection rule.

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