set_market_data_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 disclose real behavior: the specific error code loosening_refused on enable, the reason (widening priced quotes), the blast radius ('Officer control-plane config only'), and the default posture ('protected and disabled by default'). It stops short of stating required permissions/authorization for the mutation or whether a disable is similarly guarded.

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 dense sentences with zero filler, and the core operation is front-loaded before the refusal semantics and scope notes. Every sentence carries information the agent could not get from the schema.

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 need not be explained, and all three parameters are documented. The description covers the mutation surface, the failure mode on enable, and the default protected state; it could still be more complete about authorization requirements and the disable path's failure behavior.

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 id, externalSymbol, and enabled are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds only the framing that exactly one instrument is targeted, with no extra syntax, identifier format, or cross-field constraints.

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 uses a precise verb pair ('Enable or disable') bound to a specific, scoped resource ('one configured market-data instrument'), so the agent knows exactly what state change is offered. It doesn't explicitly name the nearby sibling set_trading_instrument, so the distinction from it is left to be inferred from the 'market-data' qualifier.

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 tool is for toggling the enabled flag on an existing instrument, and the text warns that an enable will be refused with loosening_refused. There is no explicit guidance on when to prefer a sibling (set_trading_instrument) or what the correct alternative is when the refusal fires.

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