modify_position

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the prerequisite that the position must be open, but does not explain consequences of modifying, whether partial updates are allowed, error conditions, or whether it requires special permissions. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.

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: one English sentence plus a Korean translation. It front-loads the essential purpose with no filler or unnecessary details. Every word earns its place.

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 simple 3-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately states the core functionality. It clearly defines the scope (SL/TP only) and the target (open position). While it could mention error handling or the need for at least one of sl/tp, those are partially covered by the schema's required field ticket and optional flags. Overall, it is reasonably complete for the tool's simplicity.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no meaningful meaning beyond the schema—it simply paraphrases the sl and tp parameters by saying 'stop loss and/or take profit', which the schema already defines as optional numbers. No credit for redundancy.

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 verb 'Modify' and the resource 'open position', specifying the exact attributes (stop loss and/or take profit). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like modify_order (orders vs positions) and close_position (closing vs modifying).

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 implies usage for open positions via the phrase 'open position', but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide alternative tool names. It lacks explicit exclusions or alternative guidance, making it minimally sufficient.

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