dzengi_update_order

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: the mutation has a financial side effect, is sent once, and an unknown outcome requires account reconciliation before retry. This clarifies the idempotency semantics (despite idempotentHint=true, retries are dangerous without reconciliation) and the destructive nature. No contradiction with annotations; it enriches 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?

Two sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the action and consequence; the second gives a critical operational warning. Every word earns its place, and the most important behavioral caveat is front-loaded.

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 the tool's complexity (12 params, financial side effect, no output schema), the description is too thin. It covers the critical retry/reconciliation behavior but omits what the parameters do, what a successful response looks like, and how this differs from dzengi_edit_order. The annotations cover safety profile, but the description doesn't provide enough for an agent to confidently invoke this mutation 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 for 12 parameters, but it mentions none of them. The description doesn't explain what 'leverage-order protection' means for parameters like stopLoss, takeProfit, trailingStopLoss, guaranteedStopLoss, or how confirm and clientRequestId interact. With 0% coverage and no parameter explanation, the agent is left to infer semantics from names alone, which is insufficient for a financial mutation.

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 states a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('leverage-order protection') and adds a critical qualifier ('with a financial side effect'). It distinguishes itself from generic order editing by emphasizing the financial consequence, which helps differentiate it from siblings like dzengi_edit_order. However, it doesn't explicitly name the sibling it is not, so it's clear but not fully differentiated.

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 when to use this tool: when updating leverage-order protection, and it warns that the mutation is sent once and retries require account reconciliation. This gives clear context for use and a caution about retry behavior. It doesn't explicitly list alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the warning about financial side effects and reconciliation provides practical usage guidance.

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