close_all

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: it discloses the 'destructive bulk operation' nature (annotations already have destructiveHint=true, but this reinforces it), specifies a cost ('Costs 10 weight') not covered by annotations, and emphasizes user confirmation. This enriches understanding of the tool's impact and constraints.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by critical warnings and cost details in subsequent sentences. Every sentence adds essential value (destructive nature, user confirmation, weight cost) with zero waste, making it highly efficient and well-structured.

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 (destructive bulk operation), the description is complete: it covers purpose, guidelines, behavioral traits (destructiveness, cost), and user confirmation needs. Annotations provide safety hints, and the schema covers parameters fully, so no output schema is needed for this action-oriented tool. All critical aspects are addressed.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema fully documents both parameters (comment and idempotency_key). The description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or usage tips. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema carries the burden.

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 ('Close ALL open positions') and resource ('on the account'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like close_by, close_position, and close_symbol that target specific positions or symbols rather than all positions. The verb 'Close' and scope 'ALL' are precise.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('Close ALL open positions') and provides clear exclusions: it warns to 'confirm with user first' due to its destructive nature, and it distinguishes from alternatives by implying bulk operation vs. targeted closes in siblings. This gives strong guidance on usage context.

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