close_symbol

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: it explicitly warns 'Destructive — confirm with user first' (reinforcing destructiveHint=true but adding user confirmation requirement), discloses a cost ('Costs 10 weight') not indicated in annotations, and clarifies the scope ('all positions for a specific symbol'). These details help the agent understand operational 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 extremely concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by critical warnings and cost information. Every sentence earns its place with essential information, and there's no wasted verbiage or redundancy.

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 destructive tool with no output schema, the description provides strong context: clear purpose, destructive warning with user confirmation guidance, cost disclosure, and implicit parameter understanding through schema coverage. It lacks details on return values or error conditions, but given the annotations and schema richness, it's nearly complete for safe agent use.

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 input schema already fully documents all three parameters (symbol, comment, idempotency_key). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 for adequate but not enhanced parameter explanation.

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 positions') and target resource ('for a specific symbol'), distinguishing it from siblings like close_all (all symbols), close_by (different filtering), and close_position (single position). It uses precise language that leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('Close all positions for a specific symbol') and includes a critical usage warning ('Destructive — confirm with user first'). However, it doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives like close_position for individual positions or close_all for all symbols, though the purpose implies differentiation.

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