guarded_close_position

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

The description discloses the guard mechanism and refusal condition, adding value beyond annotations (which show destructiveHint false, meaning not inherently destructive). No contradiction; it explains the conditional refusal behavior.

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 sentences, direct and to the point. No extraneous words. Efficiently communicates purpose and key behavior.

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 no output schema, the description covers the guard logic well. However, it lacks details on return values or failure modes beyond refusing. Still sufficient for a simple close operation with guard.

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%, with both parameters described. The description does not add new meaning beyond the schema (e.g., qty is already labeled 'Optional — partial close'). No additional parameter nuances provided.

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 action (close a position), the resource (position on Alpaca), and adds the unique guard mechanism. It differentiates from siblings like guarded_place_order by focusing on closing, not opening.

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 explains the guard behavior but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like a plain close (if it existed) or guarded_place_order. Implicit usage from context but lacks explicit guidance.

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