edit_order

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

With no annotations, the description must reveal behavioral traits itself. It discloses that the operation is destructive (cancel) and creates a new order atomically. However, it omits details like error handling (e.g., partial failure), effect on order IDs, and required permissions, leaving gaps.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the core operation, but could arguably add a bit more context without losing conciseness.

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 10 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is critically incomplete. It fails to explain parameter usage, return values, prerequisites, or error states, severely hindering the agent's ability to invoke the tool correctly.

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%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameter roles. It does not mention any parameters, leaving the agent to guess the meaning of txid, pair, volume, etc. The property names alone are insufficient for correct usage.

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 edits an order by atomic replacement (cancel + recreate). This distinguishes it from siblings like amend_order (modify) and cancel_order (only cancel). The verb 'edit' combined with the parenthetical explanation provides specific, actionable meaning.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like amend_order or cancel_order then add_order. While the atomic replacement hint suggests use cases where amend is insufficient, the agent is left to infer this without direction.

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