modify_order

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so exceptionally. It discloses that the order is not edited in place, the original order_id becomes inactive with status REPLACED, the caller must use new_order_id, and reuse of the old ID returns HTTP 409 already-modified.

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 dense but well-organized: core purpose and confirmation requirement come first, then market rules, then lifecycle semantics. A small amount of repetition about canceling and replacing appears in both market sections, but it is justified by differing constraints.

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 description covers operation semantics, market-specific restrictions, required confirmation, and post-modification order lifecycle. With an output schema available, return-value detail is not needed, but some parameter-level documentation for required fields like account_seq and order_type would make it fully complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It meaningfully explains symbol, confirm, order_id, price, and quantity behavior. However, required parameters account_seq and order_type are not described, and confirm_high_value_order is also unexplained, leaving significant gaps.

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 and resource: 'Modify a live pending order'. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like place_order and cancel_order by scoping to existing pending orders and describing replacement behavior.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: modifications only apply to live pending orders, confirm=True is required, and market-specific constraints dictate whether quantity can be changed. It explicitly states when cancellation and re-ordering is needed instead.

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