modify-position-margin

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the isolated-margin-only scope and the intended effect (adjusting risk, preventing liquidation), but says nothing about permissions, reversibility, rate limits, or error behavior for what is a financial mutation.

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 operation and scope, with zero redundant or filler content.

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?

Parameters are fully covered by the schema, but this is a mutation on a live futures position with no annotations and no output schema, so the definition should do more to convey prerequisites and result behavior than it does.

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%, so the type (1=add, 2=reduce), amount, and symbol semantics are already fully documented in the schema. The description's 'add or reduce' phrasing mirrors the schema without adding format or constraint detail, so the baseline of 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+resource ('Modify isolated position margin') scoped to Binance USDⓈ-M Futures, which is clearly distinguishable from siblings like change-leverage and change-margin-type. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling, but the resource is specific enough that no schema opening is required to tell it apart.

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 clear use context: add or reduce margin to adjust position risk and prevent liquidation. However, it names no alternatives (e.g., change-leverage, change-margin-type) and states no when-not conditions, so routing is left partly to inference.

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