update_limits

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

Without annotations, the description carries the burden and partially meets it: '[WRITE ACTION]' signals mutation, 'Unspecified fields preserve current values' describes update semantics, and 'Returns full updated risk limits record' states the return. It does not disclose permission requirements, reversibility, or side effects on active trading, which would be expected 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 front-loaded with the write-action flag and tool purpose, followed by a clear behavioral note and three concise, relevant examples. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy.

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 an 8-parameter write tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides the essential context: mutation flag, partial-update semantics, return record, and practical examples. It falls short of complete transparency by omitting authorization requirements and any mention of how changes interact with active trading or other risk controls.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds context by grouping the eight parameters into logical categories and clarifying that omitted fields preserve current values, which is meaningful behavioral information beyond the schema's per-field descriptions. However, it does not introduce additional parameter-specific constraints beyond what the schema already documents.

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 uses a specific verb+resource ('Update configured risk management thresholds in TradeZylo') and enumerates the seven threshold types, making it immediately distinguishable from siblings like get_risk_limits and get_risk_check.

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 examples implicitly show when to use it (changing specific limits), and 'Unspecified fields preserve current values' clarifies partial-update behavior. However, there is no explicit statement of when NOT to use it or which alternatives (e.g., pause_account, freeze_trading) might be more appropriate for risk mitigation, leaving a small gap.

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