주문 정정 (실거래 주의)

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

The description goes beyond the annotations by warning that this is a real trade (실거래 주의), restricting modification to PENDING/PARTIAL_FILLED orders, and detailing market-specific behaviors (KR quantity+price, US price only). It also discloses the high-value order confirmation flag. While annotations already mark destructiveHint=true, the description adds meaningful context about state prerequisites and safety checks, though it does not cover failure behavior or reversibility.

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 well-organized with a warning header, market rules, and a structured Args/Returns layout. It is front-loaded with the most critical caution. The Args list is somewhat redundant with the schema but serves as a useful inline summary; still, it could be more concise by omitting details already present in the schema. Overall, it is efficiently sized without unnecessary fluff.

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 complexity (6 parameters, market-specific rules, no output schema), the description is fairly complete. It explains the return value, parameter requirements, status preconditions, and the high-value flag. It does not mention error scenarios or what happens if the order is not in the correct state, but for a mutation tool with strong schema and annotation support, this is a minor gap.

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 the baseline is 3. The description's Args list largely duplicates the schema, though it does add a few context cues such as 'accountSeq from toss_get_accounts response' and the positive-integer constraint. No new semantic value is added beyond what the schema already provides, so the score remains at baseline.

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 tool modifies actual stock orders, limited to PENDING/PARTIAL_FILLED status, with specific market rules for KR and US stocks. The verb '정정합니다' (modify/correct) and the explicit resource ('주식 주문') make the purpose unambiguous and distinct from siblings like toss_create_order and toss_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 specifies when this tool is applicable: only for orders in PENDING/PARTIAL_FILLED status. It also provides important usage constraints, such as US stocks cannot change quantity, and that confirmHighValueOrder is required for orders above 100 million KRW. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like 'use toss_cancel_order to cancel' or 'when not to use this tool', so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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