clear_trading_fee_account

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the refusal error code (loosening_refused), the consequence (changes where future venue fees are debited), and the governance posture (mutates Officer control-plane config, protected and disabled by default). It stops short of saying what the resulting state is or how to enable the operation.

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?

Three compact sentences with the core action front-loaded and no filler. The middle clause ('The clear is refused with loosening_refused, as it moves where future venue fees are debited') is slightly tangled in phrasing but carries real information.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the single required param is fully documented in the schema. The description supplies the safety and refusal context an agent needs for a protected, disabled-by-default mutation. It could say more about what state remains after a successful clear.

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?

Single parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Trading connection id'), so the schema already does the work. The description adds no meaning about the connection parameter or its scope, which is acceptable at high coverage but earns no extra credit.

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 (clear) and a specific resource (the Officer account receiving unlinked venue fees), which is enough to distinguish it from generic account tools. It does not explicitly name the inverse sibling set_trading_fee_account, so the pairing must be inferred from the shared 'trading_fee_account' naming.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the agent learns the operation undoes fee-account linkage, and that it will be refused with loosening_refused. There is no explicit 'use this instead of X when Y' guidance and no statement of prerequisites the caller must satisfy before the call can succeed.

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