delete_trade

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that deleted MT5 trades reappear on sync, which is real behavioral context, but never states that deletion is irreversible, what happens to attached notes/feedback/tags, or whether any confirmation/permission is required for a destructive mutation.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the core action first and the scoping caveat in parentheses. No wasted words.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, and the MT5 caveat is helpful. But for a destructive, unannotated tool with an undocumented identifier parameter, the definition leaves gaps an agent would need filled before calling safely.

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 0% and there is one required parameter, trade_id, which the description does not explain at all — not its source, format, or whether it is the manual-trade identifier rather than an MT5 ticket. The description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Delete a manually logged trade') and immediately narrows scope with the MT5 carve-out, which implicitly distinguishes it from sync_mt5 behavior. It never names a sibling explicitly, but the operation is unambiguous.

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?

It supplies an explicit exclusion ('MT5 trades can't be deleted') but offers no positive when-to-use criteria and no alternative for what an agent should do with MT5-sourced trades. Usage context is implied rather than directed.

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