modify_order

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does disclose the highest-risk trait: a dry-run default unless an environment flag enables real trading. It omits other behaviors such as what happens to unspecified fields, partial-modification semantics, and error/permission conditions.

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 sentences, both earning their place: the first names the operation and modifiable fields, the second front-loads the critical dry-run safety gate. No filler.

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 an 8-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the safety gate and field enumeration but is silent on how the two required parameters (variety, order_id) are used and how partial modifications are applied. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 13%, so the description must compensate. It enumerates six modifiable fields (price, quantity, order_type, trigger_price, validity, disclosed_quantity) but leaves 'variety' and 'order_id' with no semantic explanation, and adds no format, unit, or mutual-exclusion details.

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 ('Modify a pending order') plus the exact set of modifiable fields, which distinguishes it from place_order/cancel_order siblings. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Gives a strong usage condition: only pending orders, and a dry-run default gated by KITE_MCP_ENABLE_TRADING=true. It stops short of explicit when-not guidance (e.g. for executed or cancelled orders) or naming alternatives.

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