release_stuck_orders

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the action ('release stuck orders') without disclosing behavioral traits like whether this is a safe read-only operation, if it requires specific permissions, potential side effects (e.g., order resubmission), or system impact. It mentions the mechanism ('removing venue_down flags') but doesn't explain what that entails.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action and avoids redundancy, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 the complexity of a system-level recovery tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'stuck orders' are, how 'venue_down flags' work, what happens after release (e.g., do orders resume processing?), or potential risks. For a tool that likely affects multiple venues, more context is needed.

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?

The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific information, which is appropriate since there are no parameters to document.

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 specific action ('release all stuck orders') and the mechanism ('by removing venue_down flags'), with the resource being 'orders across all venues'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'cancel_algo', 'send_order', or 'validate_orders' by focusing on system-level recovery rather than order manipulation or validation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'fix_session_issue', 'reset_sequence', or 'update_venue_status', which might address similar problems. It lacks explicit context about when this operation is appropriate or what conditions indicate 'stuck orders'.

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