cap_trade_positions_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', partially disclosing behavioral traits. However, it lacks details on what is changed, auth needs, or reversibility.

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 and front-loaded, stating the core action immediately. No fluff. However, it could include parameter guidance without becoming verbose.

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 the tool's complexity (10 params, no annotations, requires confirm), the description lacks context on return values (output schema exists but not mentioned), parameter interaction, and detailed behavioral effects. Incomplete for safe usage.

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%. The description does not explain any of the 10 parameters, such as stop_level vs stop_distance, or the confirm/wait_for_confirm/timeout_s fields. This is inadequate for an agent to use parameters correctly.

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 stop-loss/take-profit on an open position, with 'SIDE EFFECT' and 'Requires confirm' for clarity. It distinguishes from siblings like cap_trade_orders_amend (working orders) and cap_trade_positions_close (close).

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 use for modifying SL/TP but does not explicitly state when to use vs alternatives. No mention of when not to use or alternatives.

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