adjust_isolated_margin

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 well: it discloses deprecation, required API credentials, three named failure modes, and the real financial consequence ('This moves REAL margin on the position'). This is far beyond what the schema alone provides.

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 deprecation warning is front-loaded, and the following sentences add useful behavioral detail. Slight redundancy appears in restating the `amount` parameter already documented in the schema, but the description remains well organized and mostly free of waste.

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?

For a deprecated mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: replacement, required credentials, failure conditions, parameter type, and real-margin impact. Nothing critical for correct invocation is missing.

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 schema already defines all three parameters. The description only restates that `amount` is a positive decimal string, which duplicates the schema without adding syntax or constraints beyond it. Baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource: add or remove isolated margin on an open position. It also names the replacement sibling (`add_margin`) due to deprecation, so an agent can immediately distinguish it from alternatives.

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?

Explicitly says it is deprecated and directs the agent to `add_margin`, which is the key routing guidance. It further lists precise failure conditions (MarginModeNotIsolated, NoOpenPosition, margin floor breach) and credential requirements, leaving little ambiguity about when this call will succeed or fail.

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