kalshi_decrease_order_v2

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

Annotations already set readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, indicating a non-read-only mutation. The description adds the specific behavior (decreasing remaining count) and the HTTP method/path ('Calls POST /portfolio/events/orders/{order_id}/decrease'), which provides useful context beyond the annotations. It does not go into error conditions or side effects, but the added context justifies a 4.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no filler. The second sentence delivers the critical constraint and endpoint, making it both concise and informative.

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 6-parameter tool with comprehensive schema descriptions and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It explains the action, the constraint, and the endpoint. A minor gap is the absence of a note on when to use this instead of cancel/amend, but given the schema's richness, this is not a significant omission.

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 coverage is high (83%), so the schema already documents all parameters including the 'exactly one of' constraint on reduce_by/reduce_to. The description repeats this constraint but does not add new semantic meaning. With the schema doing the heavy lifting, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 the specific action: 'decreasing the remaining count of an existing event-market order using the V2 request/response shape.' This distinguishes it from siblings like kalshi_cancel_order_v2 (which cancels an order) and kalshi_amend_order_v2 (which may change other fields). The explicit endpoint path reinforces the tool's purpose.

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?

Provides a clear usage constraint: 'Exactly one of `reduce_by` or `reduce_to` must be provided.' This tells the agent how to invoke the tool correctly. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like cancel or amend, so it lacks exclusionary guidance.

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