dzengi_close_position

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

The annotations already mark the operation as destructive and non-idempotent; the description adds important context by naming the financial side effect and by instructing reconciliation before any retry. This is genuinely useful behavioral disclosure beyond the annotations.

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?

Two concise sentences with the purpose front-loaded and the critical retry condition right after. There is no filler or redundant repetition.

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 required 4-parameter mutation with no output schema and zero param descriptions, the definition is too thin. It does not describe what confirm is for, what response to expect, or how clientRequestId should be used across retries or reconciliation.

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%, and the description does not explain confirm, symbol, positionId, or clientRequestId. Only minimal inference is possible from 'close a leverage position'; it fails to compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation.

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?

States a clear action ('Close') and a specific resource ('a leverage position'), plus signals a financial side effect. This clearly distinguishes the tool from the read-only siblings and from position-update tools.

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?

Provides a clear operational instruction: the mutation is sent once, and a retry requires account reconciliation first. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not conditions, so it stops short of a 5.

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