amend_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 well: it discloses the atomic cancel-replace semantics, a pre-trade margin check on the replacement, the liquidation-order exclusion, credential requirements, and warns it 'modifies a REAL order on the matching engine'. It does not say what happens to the original order if the replacement is rejected, nor mention rate limits.

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?

Front-loaded with the deprecation notice, then compressed behavioral facts in tight clauses. No filler and every sentence conveys something operationally relevant.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers auth, side effects, key exclusions, and the atomicity model. The remaining gap is the response shape and failure semantics (e.g., whether the original order survives a failed margin check), which the absent output schema leaves undocumented.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline would be 3, but the description adds a constraint the schema omits: the schema requires only `order_id` and `market_id`, while the description states 'At least one of `price` or `size` is required'. That is real value beyond the structured fields.

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 — 'Amend a resting order's price and/or size' — and characterizes the mechanism as 'one atomic cancel-replace operation'. It also flags deprecation and names the replacement sibling `edit_order`, so an agent can distinguish it from `edit_order`/`cancel_order` without opening any schema.

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 leading 'Deprecated: use `edit_order`' is an explicit when-not/routing instruction, and it adds preconditions ('requires API credentials', 'liquidation orders cannot be amended', at least one of price/size). It stops short of contrasting the amend path with an explicit cancel+create workflow, but the alternative is clearly named.

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