dzengi_edit_order

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it characterizes the operation as having a 'financial side effect' and warns that an unknown outcome requires account reconciliation before retry. This complements the readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true annotations without contradicting them.

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 two focused sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence earns its place by warning about retry behavior and financial reconciliation.

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 six parameters, no output schema, and zero parameter descriptions, the description is not complete enough. It warns about financial side effects, but does not explain what fields like confirm or expireTimestamp do, how orderId relates to clientRequestId, or what the expected outcome/response is.

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 any of the six parameters: price, symbol, confirm, orderId, clientRequestId, and expireTimestamp. With no schema descriptions and no parameter guidance in the description, the agent must guess the meaning and constraints of fields like confirm and clientRequestId.

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 a specific action and resource: 'Edit an exchange order with a financial side effect.' The verb and object are unambiguous, but it does not differentiate this from the sibling dzengi_update_order, which appears to be the same operation under a different name.

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 operational cautions about sending the mutation once and reconciling before retry, but it gives no guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as dzengi_update_order, dzengi_place_order, or dzengi_cancel_order. There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use advice.

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