change-position-mode

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 does not disclose the well-known constraint that Binance rejects this change while open positions or orders exist, nor whether the swap is account-wide, reversible, or permission-gated. For a mutation of account-level trading behavior this is a significant gap.

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, front-loaded with the action and domain, with zero filler. The definitional clause about Hedge Mode is mildly redundant but does aid comprehension of the mode names.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits the preconditions that determine whether the call succeeds (no open positions/orders), the scope of the change, and the required account/permission context. It is underspecified for the risk profile of the operation.

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 100% and the single enum-typed parameter is fully documented ('true for Hedge Mode, false for One-way Mode') in the schema itself. The description adds no syntax or default detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (change) and resource (position mode) with the exact domain (Binance USDⓈ-M Futures) and names both modes involved. It cannot be confused with any sibling like change-leverage or change-margin-type.

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 second sentence explains what Hedge Mode means but gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no indication of how this relates to siblings such as new-order. The agent must infer the calling context entirely.

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