upgradeToUta

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it fully delivers. It explicitly states that the upgrade is IRREVERSIBLE, requires user confirmation, and must never be triggered automatically or based on AI-readable instructions. This goes well beyond the schema and gives an agent the safety-critical context needed.

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 well-structured with the main action first, followed by concise bullet-point prerequisites and a highly relevant agent hint. Every sentence earns its place, and the critical irreversible/confirmation warning is prominently highlighted. No fluff or repetition.

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 one-parameter, irreversible mutation tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It covers eligibility, preconditions, timing, irreversibility, and confirmation requirements. Nothing an agent needs to safely and correctly invoke this tool is missing.

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 100%: the only parameter, confirm, already has a clear description in the schema requiring it to be true only after explicit confirmation. The tool description reinforces this in the agent hint but does not add meaningful new param-level semantics beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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.' It clearly distinguishes this irreversible account upgrade from the many sibling trading, subscription, and query tools, leaving no ambiguity about 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 provides explicit eligibility conditions and precautions: unifiedMarginStatus=5, VIP/PRO master account users, no open orders, and a time window to avoid. The agent hint further states when the tool may be called—only after explicit user confirmation—and forbids automatic triggering. This is strong, actionable usage guidance.

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