update_trade

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose that this is a [WRITE ACTION] and that it returns the full updated record. However, it omits key mutation semantics: whether it is a partial update (unmentioned fields preserved vs. cleared), permission/auth requirements, and validation or failure behavior for the 15 accepted fields.

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?

Front-loaded with the [WRITE ACTION] tag and the core verb+resource statement before any examples, and the example list is genuinely illustrative rather than filler. It is slightly long, but every sentence serves selection or invocation.

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 15-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: write intent, the field territory it operates on, and that the full updated record is returned. The remaining gap is partial-update semantics (what happens to fields not supplied), which matters for correct invocation.

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 15 parameters including constraints like exclusiveMinimum and the 1-10 rating range. The description's prose restates a subset of the same fields (stop loss, take profit, notes, lessons, rating, mistakes) without adding format, unit, or interaction detail, so it is baseline-adequate rather than additive.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Update fields of an existing trade record in TradeZylo") and enumerates the editable surface: stop loss, take profit, notes, lessons, execution rating, mistake tags. That is enough to separate it from log_trade and close_trade in practice, but the description never names those siblings, so it stops short of explicit differentiation.

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 four example questions give concrete, unambiguous usage contexts (moving stops, adding notes, tagging mistakes, updating lessons) that map to real field combinations. There is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternative routing, which keeps it below a 5.

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