modify_order

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. The phrase 'PLACES A REAL change' discloses that the operation actually executes, alerting the agent that it is not a simulation or dry run. However, it does not disclose other relevant behaviors such as high-value confirmation requirements, reversibility, or effects on the existing order, leaving gaps that the schema alone cannot fill.

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 exceptionally concise, consisting of two short sentences. The first sentence states the core action, and the second emphasizes the real-world impact. Every word serves a purpose, and the structure is front-loaded with the essential information, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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 tool's moderate complexity, the schema's full parameter coverage, and the absence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It clearly states what the tool does and warns about the real change, but it omits usage context (when to modify vs. cancel/create) and any description of return values or side effects, leaving some gaps for an agent.

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 schema provides full (100%) descriptions for all six parameters, including the meaning of price, quantity, order_type, and confirm_high_value_order. The tool description adds no additional semantic information beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline but does not improve comprehension or clarify parameter interactions.

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 the specific verb 'Modify' and the resource 'existing order', making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It also includes '주문 정정' (order correction) which reinforces the intent, and the distinct action differentiates it from sibling tools like create_order and cancel_order.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that this is for modifying existing orders only, nor does it note any conditions or exclusions (e.g., 'use cancel_order to void'). The only context is the verb 'modify', which implies the use case but lacks direct comparison or scenarios.

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