Execute a Strata order control

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

Annotations already convey destructive and read/write behavior; the description adds valuable context: Strata resolves balance, market, mark, decimals and tick grid internally, and autonomous placements fail-closed if the dead-man guard is not established. This is a meaningful behavioral disclosure beyond the flags and is consistent with 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?

Three dense sentences with an example front-loaded and no filler or restatement of the title. The security-related final sentence earns its place, though the phrasing 'warm dead-man guard' is somewhat jargon-heavy and could be clearer.

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 15-parameter, multi-action execution tool with no output schema, the description is too thin: it leaves the operations array composition, per-action required parameters, defaults, and error/return behavior unspecified. An agent can get the high-level intent but must rely heavily on enum names and property names to invoke it 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?

With only 40% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates by linking the friendly-order inputs ('availablePercent' + 'markOffsetBps') to a concrete example and mentioning exact-atom controls. But it does not clarify many parameters such as operations structure, idempotencyKey, orderType, clientOrderId, or which fields apply to which action, so the coverage gap remains.

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 identifies the operation family: placing human limit orders and using exact-atom cancel/replace/batch controls, with a concrete example ('sell 10% of available SOL at mark +3%'). It adds specificity through the internal-resolution note. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools such as strata_trade or strata_market_making_intent_execute, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

It states primary use cases—friendly human limit orders in one call and exact-atom control operations—and implies an autonomous use case via the dead-man guard note. However, it gives no exclusions or explicit alternatives, so an agent must infer when to prefer this over related execution or market-making tools.

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