delete_trading_instrument

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does reasonably well: it discloses that the call mutates 'Officer control-plane config', that it is protected and disabled by default, and names the refusal code loosening_refused along with the rationale (a mapping governs what can be sent and fee booking). This is substantive beyond what the schema offers.

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 tight sentences with the action front-loaded and the refusal/mutation caveats following. The clause about fee booking is slightly dense but earns its place by justifying the refusal behavior.

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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be explained, and both params are fully documented in schema. The description supplies the key missing behavioral context (protected, disabled by default, refusal semantics). Only the enabling/auth path is left unstated.

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%, with both `connection` and `externalSymbol` already documented, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no meaning about either parameter (e.g., how externalSymbol relates to the venue symbol or whether it must match an existing mapping).

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Delete a trading instrument mapping.' This is unambiguous and distinguishable from siblings like set_trading_instrument or delete_asset. It does not explicitly name a sibling, but the resource noun is precise enough that an agent won't confuse it.

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?

It hints at preconditions ('protected and disabled by default') and states the operation will be refused (loosening_refused), which implies the tool only succeeds under a specific configuration state. However, it never says when to use this versus set_trading_instrument or how to enable the protected operation, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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