modify_gtt_order

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Modify' implies a mutation operation, but the description doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: whether this requires specific permissions, if modifications are reversible, what happens to partially filled orders, rate limits, error conditions, or confirmation requirements. For a financial trading tool with 15 parameters, this lack of behavioral context is a significant gap.

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 a single, efficient sentence that states the core purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with a clear name and comprehensive schema documentation. Every word earns its place by conveying the essential action and target resource.

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 complexity (financial trading tool with 15 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what 'modify' entails operationally, what values can be changed, whether modifications affect order status, what the response looks like, or error scenarios. For a mutation tool in a sensitive domain with many sibling tools, this minimal description leaves too much undefined.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 15 parameters thoroughly with descriptions and enums. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. According to guidelines, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description, which applies here.

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 verb ('modify') and resource ('existing GTT order'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this tool from 'place_gtt_order' (creation) and 'delete_gtt_order' (deletion), though it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'modify_order' (which likely modifies regular orders). The description is specific but could be more precise about what distinguishes GTT order modification from regular order modification.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing GTT order ID), when modification is allowed versus when cancellation might be needed, or how this differs from 'modify_order' for non-GTT orders. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and parameters alone.

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