modify_order

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Modify an existing order' implies a write/mutation operation, but it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, whether modifications are reversible, what happens on failure, or typical response patterns. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with comprehensive schema documentation and gets straight to the point without unnecessary elaboration.

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 complex order modification tool with 8 parameters (including conditional requirements like price for LIMIT orders) and no annotations or output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what successful modification entails, what values can be changed, or how the system responds. The agent must rely entirely on the schema for operational details.

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 8 parameters thoroughly with descriptions, enums, defaults, and constraints. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, meeting the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

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 states 'Modify an existing order' which clearly indicates the verb (modify) and resource (order). However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'cancel_order' or 'modify_gtt_order', leaving ambiguity about when to use this specific modification tool versus alternatives.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'cancel_order' or 'modify_gtt_order'. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, constraints, or typical scenarios for order modification, leaving the agent to infer usage from context alone.

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