config.safety_limits

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses persistence and enforcement scope, but lacks details on authorization needs, error behavior if limits are exceeded, or whether changes are incremental or full replacements.

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?

Two concise sentences with no redundant information. The description is front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by behavioral notes, making it easy to scan.

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 6 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers core purpose and behavior. However, it omits what the tool returns (e.g., success message or updated limits) and does not clarify that all parameters are optional.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description mentions three parameters (max order size, exposure cap, spread) but adds no extra meaning beyond the schema. Other params like max_per_market and min_liquidity are not elaborated.

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 'Configure' and the resource 'trading safety guardrails', specifying three concrete limit types. This distinguishes the tool from siblings like config.dashboard or config.set, which focus on different aspects.

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 clear context: limits are enforced on all subsequent buy/sell operations and persist in the database. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternative tools like config.set or config.go_live.

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