modify_order

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility, and it fully discloses the side effects: the order is replaced under a new ID, the original becomes inactive with REPLACED, reuse of the old ID fails with HTTP 409, and the caller must use new_order_id. This is exactly the kind of behavioral context agents need.

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?

Every sentence carries a unique, decision-relevant fact. The most important constraint (confirm=True) is front-loaded, and the market-specific rules and replacement behavior are arranged in clear paragraphs with no filler.

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?

The operational behavior is thoroughly covered, and an output schema exists to describe return values. Still, for a mutation with eight parameters and no annotations, the missing semantics for account_seq, order_type, and confirm_high_value_order leave the calling contract incomplete 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 description adds meaning for symbol, confirm, price, quantity, and order_id, which is valuable given 0% schema coverage. However, two required parameters (account_seq and order_type) are never explained, and confirm_high_value_order is not distinguished from confirm, leaving important invocation details underspecified.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Modify') and resource ('a live pending order'), and the replacement semantics make it easy to distinguish from place_order/cancel_order. No sibling ambiguity remains.

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?

It gives explicit when-not guidance: US-market quantity changes and KR-market quantity increases must be done by canceling and placing a new order. It stops short of stating the positive selection rule ('use this for allowed price/quantity changes') but that is strongly implied.

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