switchPositionMode

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

Beyond the annotations, the description adds important behavioral constraints: product eligibility, symbol/coin requirement, symbol priority, and the precondition of no open positions or orders. It does not mention what happens if the precondition is violated or describe further side effects, but it adds meaningful context over the annotations.

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 short and front-loaded, but the 'Agent hint' section largely repeats the first paragraph's content. The repetition means not every sentence earns its place, though it remains readable and not overly verbose.

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 simple mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the purpose, parameter constraints, product limitation, and preconditions. It does not differentiate from similar mode-switching siblings or describe call outcomes, but the core information needed to invoke it correctly is present.

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 input schema provides no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), so the description carries the full burden. It explains the mode enum values, requires either symbol or coin, clarifies that symbol takes priority, and implicitly connects the linear category to USDT perpetual trading. This fully compensates for the schema gap.

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 action: switching between one-way mode (0) and hedge mode (3) for positions, and it names the mode values directly. It is specific about the resource and operation, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from similar sibling tools like setHedgingMode or setMarginMode.

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 provides useful usage context: only USDT perpetual supports hedge mode, either symbol or coin must be provided, and there should be no open positions or orders before switching. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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