update_trading_connection

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 a mutation of Officer control-plane config, that credential changes are refused with a named error (loosening_refused), and the non-obvious side effect that the trading runtime restarts and unavailable connections come back. It omits what a successful response contains and whether label-only updates have any runtime impact.

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, front-loaded with the action and its two field scopes before the failure/side-effect caveats. Every sentence carries information; the bare token 'loosening_refused' is dropped in unexplained, but as an error code it is plausibly actionable.

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 3-parameter mutation with a rich output schema, the definition covers the risky paths (credential refusal, runtime restart, protected/disabled default) and relies on the schema for return values and credential shapes. Only the post-success behavior of label-only updates 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description only echoes the schema by calling credentials 'write-only' and noting omitted fields keep stored values. It adds no shape or validation detail beyond the schema, though the mutation's constraint on credentials is useful context.

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 first sentence names the specific verb and the two mutable fields (label, write-only credentials) on a trading connection, which is far more precise than the bare tool name. It implicitly separates itself from set_trading_connection_enabled and create_trading_connection by scoping the change to label/credentials, but it never names a sibling to route against.

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 context is implied rather than stated: 'protected and disabled by default' signals the feature must be enabled first, and the refusal note warns that credential updates fail. There is no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative for changing other connection aspects.

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