modify_gtt_rule

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description aligns by stating 'Modify'. It adds the context of changing specific fields but does not disclose side effects like whether all required parameters must be sent or if unmentioned fields are reset. This is acceptable given annotation coverage, so a middle score is appropriate.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action. No redundant content or filler, making it highly efficient.

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 rich schema with 100% coverage and annotations indicating destructive behavior, the description is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool. It does not explain return values, but no output schema exists and this is not required for a modify operation.

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 100%, so all 12 parameters are described in the input schema. The description merely restates that price, quantity, and trigger price can be changed, adding no new format or syntax details beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is warranted.

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 uses a specific verb ('Modify') and resource ('existing GTT rule'), and lists concrete changeable fields (price, quantity, trigger price). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_gtt_rule, cancel_gtt_rule, and get_gtt_rule_details.

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 phrase 'existing GTT rule' implies this tool is for modifications rather than creation or cancellation, providing clear context. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the sibling tool names make the use case evident.

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