reverse_position

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

Annotations already indicate this is a destructive, non-readOnly, non-idempotent operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains the two-step composite nature, failure handling (207 error where position remains closed), and the cost ('Costs 2 weight'). This provides practical implementation details that annotations don't cover.

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 efficient: three sentences that each provide essential information. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by implementation details and cost. There's zero wasted text 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 trading operation with no output schema, the description provides good context about the composite nature and failure handling. However, it doesn't specify what happens on success (e.g., returns new position ticket) or detail the 'weight' cost system. Given the annotations cover safety aspects, this is reasonably complete but has minor gaps.

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 documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the full parameter documentation 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 a position and immediately open the opposite side with same volume.' It distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'close_position' by specifying it's a two-step composite operation that reverses rather than just closes. The verb+resource combination is precise and unambiguous.

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 reverse a position rather than just close it. It mentions the two-step composite nature and failure handling (207 error). However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools, though the distinction from simple close operations is implied.

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