modify_position

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond what annotations provide: it explains that passing 0 removes SL or TP, clarifies that at least one parameter (sl or tp) is required despite the schema only requiring 'ticket', and specifies this works on 'open' positions. Annotations already indicate this is a non-destructive, idempotent mutation, so the description appropriately focuses on operational details.

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 perfectly concise with two sentences that each earn their place: the first states the core purpose, the second provides critical constraints. No wasted words, and the most important information (updating SL/TP) is front-loaded.

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 mutation tool with good annotations (non-destructive, idempotent) but no output schema, the description provides strong operational context. It could be slightly more complete by mentioning what happens when both sl and tp are provided simultaneously or clarifying error conditions, but it covers the essential usage scenario well.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantic context: it explains the special meaning of '0' values (to remove SL/TP), clarifies the relationship between sl and tp parameters (at least one required), and reinforces that this applies to open positions, providing valuable interpretation beyond the schema's technical descriptions.

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 ('Update SL and/or TP'), the target resource ('on an open position'), and distinguishes it from siblings like close_position or reverse_position by focusing on modifying existing positions rather than closing or reversing them.

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 clear context for when to use this tool (to update stop loss or take profit on open positions) and includes an important constraint ('At least one of sl or tp is required'), but it doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools.

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