modify_conditional_order

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

The description includes a warning (⚠️ 실제 조건주문이 변경됩니다) indicating the actual order will be changed, which is good. It also mentions type conversion is possible. However, without annotations, the description carries the full burden; it misses details about irreversibility, effect on related orders, permissions, or rate limits. It provides some transparency but not enough for a mutation tool.

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 two short sentences in Korean, highly concise and front-loaded with the purpose. The warning is separated for emphasis. No unnecessary words; every sentence earns its place.

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 (9 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description is too minimal. It does not explain behavior for different order types, whether modification is incremental or replacement, or what the response looks like. The agent cannot fully anticipate the tool's behavior from this description alone.

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 each parameter is already documented. The overall description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, such as the ability to convert types. It does not explain interactions between parameters (e.g., when second is required). Given high coverage, baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'modify' and resource 'conditional order' (조건주문 수정). It also mentions type conversion possibility, which adds specificity. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_conditional_order' or 'cancel_conditional_order', but the purpose is still evident.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, when to use modify instead of create/cancel, or any exclusions. The description only implies usage by stating what it does, lacking context for appropriate invocation.

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