post_order

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

While annotations declare destructiveHint=true, the description adds crucial behavioral context: the two-phase execution model (preview mode vs actual execution), what happens without confirm (returns preview only), and the confirmation requirement. This safety-critical workflow detail is valuable behavioral disclosure beyond the structured annotations.

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 element earns its place: the main clause defines the action/resource, while the parenthetical efficiently packs the critical confirmation workflow instruction. No redundancy or tautology. The Russian phrasing is appropriately dense for a financial API operation.

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 100% schema coverage and presence of destructive annotations, the description adequately covers the critical confirmation complexity unique to this trading tool. It explains the preview-vs-execution behavior well. Minor gap: no mention of output structure (though none defined) or specific error conditions/trading restrictions that might occur.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds significant semantic value specifically for the 'confirm' parameter, explaining the two-step execution workflow (preview then confirm) that isn't fully captured by the schema's brief description. However, it adds minimal context for other well-documented parameters like ticker or direction.

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 action verb ('Выставить'/'Place') and clearly identifies the resource (exchange order/'биржевую заявку') and scope (T-Investments). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like cancel_order and get_orders by specifying this creates new orders, and implicitly from post_stop_order by specifying 'exchange order' (биржевую заявка) versus stop orders.

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 provides explicit, critical usage context in the parenthetical: the confirmation workflow requires calling first without confirm, then with confirm:true. This is a clear 'when-to-use' pattern for the confirm parameter states. However, it lacks explicit comparison to sibling alternatives (e.g., distinguishing from post_stop_order) or prerequisite mentions (though schema references get_accounts).

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