do_not_exercise_options_position

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without explaining side effects, reversibility, or any submission requirements. No mention of potential outcomes or special conditions, making it insufficiently transparent for an action that modifies an option position.

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 a single sentence of 10 words, front-loaded with the verb 'Submits.' It contains no redundant information and is efficiently structured.

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?

This is an action tool with no output schema and no annotations. The description fails to provide context such as when the instruction is valid, what happens after submission, or any restrictions. Given the existence of the closely related exercise_options_position, more explanatory detail is required to fully understand the tool's behavior and constraints.

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?

The schema has one parameter with a description ('Option contract symbol or ID'), giving 100% coverage. The tool description adds the qualifier 'held option contract,' clarifying that the parameter must refer to a contract in the user's position, which goes beyond the schema's generic phrasing and improves semantic clarity.

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 ('Submits') and a resource ('do-not-exercise instruction for a held option contract'), clearly distinguishing it from the sibling exercise_options_position. The 'do-not-exercise' phrasing directly contrasts with the exercise action, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus exercise_options_position or other alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, timing, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name and generic description.

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