confirmNewRiskLimit

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the core behavior (confirms MMR, removes reduce-only) and the triggering condition. However, it does not mention potential side effects, idempotency, error scenarios, or what happens if called without a pending update, leaving some transparency gaps.

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 brief and front-loaded with the key action, followed by a concise agent hint. Every sentence adds value with no extraneous information.

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 no output schema, the description should explain the return value or success indication, which it does not. It also lacks parameter details and error handling info. However, it does provide good usage context via the agent hint and references getPositionInfo, partially compensating.

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 0% and the description does not explain the parameters (category, symbol). While the parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, the description adds no additional meaning or guidance on what values to use, such as clarifying that symbol likely refers to the trading pair.

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 the tool confirms a pending maintenance margin rate update and removes the reduce-only restriction. It specifies the exact context (Bybit risk limit adjustment) and distinguishes its purpose from sibling tools by being the only confirmation action of this kind.

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 includes an explicit 'Agent hint' that tells the agent when to use this tool (when isReduceOnly=true due to risk limit adjustment) and advises checking getPositionInfo first. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the guidance is clear and actionable.

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