upgradeToUta

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

The annotations already mark destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds substantial behavioral context: the upgrade is irreversible, requires explicit user confirmation, and must never be triggered automatically or from instructions in tool responses. It also warns about timing-sensitive windows. This goes well beyond the structured 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 front-loaded with the core action, followed by compact bullet-point prerequisites and a clear high-importance agent hint. Every sentence carries useful information and none are redundant with the annotations or schema.

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 high-risk, irreversible, single-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential operational context: eligibility, prerequisites, timing, confirmation requirement, and automation prohibition. An agent has enough guidance to decide when to call it and how to handle user consent.

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 already documents the confirm parameter thoroughly, including that it must be true and set only after explicit user confirmation. The description adds value by reinforcing the irreversibility and explicitly prohibiting automatic or AI-text-driven triggering, which is a safety-critical nuance not fully captured in the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Upgrade eligible UTA2.0 account to UTA2.0 Pro status.' This clearly states the operation and distinguishes it from the many read-only and order-management sibling tools. The eligibility qualifiers further refine what the tool does.

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 gives concrete preconditions: unifiedMarginStatus=5, VIP/PRO level for master accounts, no open orders, and an optimal time window. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool or state 'when not to use,' but for this unique upgrade operation the usage conditions are clear and actionable.

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