dzengi_update_position

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

Although annotations already indicate mutation and destructiveness, the description adds crucial behavioral context: it is a financial side effect, it must be sent once, and unknown outcomes require account reconciliation before retry. This meaningfully extends beyond the structured annotations and tells the agent how to treat the operation safely.

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 only two sentences long, with the primary action and side effect stated first, followed by the critical retry guidance. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 has ten parameters, no output schema, and zero schema parameter descriptions, the description is not sufficient for an agent to know how to construct a correct request. It communicates the high-level safety behavior but omits the semantics of the required fields and expected responses, leaving a significant gap for a complex financial mutation.

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%, yet the description provides no explanation of the ten parameters, including required fields like clientRequestId, confirm, symbol, and positionId, or optional protection fields like stopLoss, takeProfit, and trailingStopLoss. The description does not compensate for the schema's complete 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?

The description states a specific action and resource: 'Update leverage-position protection', and flags that it carries a financial side effect. It is clear about what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools such as close_position or edit_order.

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 a clear operational constraint: the mutation should be sent once, and an unknown outcome requires account reconciliation before retrying. It does not explicitly compare this tool to alternatives, but it provides a practical usage boundary for a financially sensitive operation.

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