replace_order_by_id

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It states the action ('Replaces') and a constraint, but does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether the original order is canceled, permissions required, or error conditions). The rich parameter descriptions in the schema carry behavioral details, but the tool description itself is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 entire description is two short sentences, no filler, and front-loads the core action. This is efficient and well-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?

For a tool with 9 parameters, nested objects, and a complex domain, the description is minimal. It identifies the core purpose and a validation rule, but doesn't contextualize the tool's place among order management operations or surface high-level restrictions (like the non-IPO notional exception) that are only buried in parameter descriptions. With such a rich schema, this is passable but not fully complete.

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 100% description coverage for all 9 parameters, including detailed constraints for qty, notional, and limit_price. The description adds only the general rule that at least one optional field must be provided, which is useful but not parameter-specific. Baseline 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Replaces') with a clear resource ('existing open order') and scope ('with updated parameters'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like place_stock_order (create) and cancel_order_by_id (cancel), though it doesn't explicitly name them.

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 usage context (existing open order) and a validation rule (at least one optional field), but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as cancel-and-resubmit or mention when replacement is not allowed (e.g., non-IPO notional orders). This is minimal guidance, not comprehensive.

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