cap_trade_orders_amend

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It mentions 'SIDE EFFECT' and 'Requires confirm', which are relevant behavioral traits. However, it omits details on what happens if confirm is false, the nature of the side effect (e.g., irreversible, financial impact), or any authorization requirements.

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 concise, one sentence, and front-loads the main action. It is efficient, but the lack of structure (e.g., bullet points) could be improved for readability. Still, every word adds value.

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?

Given 10 parameters, no schema descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema details, the description is insufficient. It provides only a high-level summary without covering parameter behaviors, return values, error states, or prerequisites, leaving the agent under-informed.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists what can be amended (level, expiry, stops-limits), mapping to parameters like level, good_till_date, stop_level, etc. But it does not explain individual parameters or clarify distinctions like stop_level vs stop_distance, leaving gaps.

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 tool amends a working order's level, expiry, or stops-limits, with a note about side effects. This specific verb and resource differentiate it from sibling tools like cap_trade_orders_cancel or cap_trade_execute_working_order.

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 implies that confirmation is required ('Requires confirm'), but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like cancel or execute. No when-not-to-use scenarios or sibling comparisons are given.

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