Modify Order

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond hinting at LIVE guards, which are not defined. It does not explain order state changes, side effects, or permission requirements.

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 very concise at two sentences but uses the jargon 'LIVE guards' without explanation, which may reduce clarity. It is front-loaded with the core action, earning its place with minimal waste.

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's complexity (9 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description is severely incomplete. It does not cover required vs optional fields, return values, error scenarios, or detailed behavior, leaving the agent with insufficient context.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only lists three parameter categories (amount, price, duration) without explaining their roles or formatting. Many parameters like AccountKey, Uic, AssetType, OrderType are not mentioned, leaving their semantics unclear.

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 states it modifies a working order and lists the modifiable fields (amount, price, duration). It distinguishes from place_order (new order) and cancel_order, though it could explicitly differentiate from modify_multileg_order. Overall, the verb+resource combination is specific and 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?

The description mentions 'Same LIVE guards as saxo_place_order,' implying there are constraints but doesn't explain what they are or when to use this tool versus alternatives like modify_multileg_order. No explicit when-not or alternative guidance is given.

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