tv_set_position_brackets

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

Annotations only signal readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the description shoulders the behavioral burden and delivers: paper-only refusal, the no-override sanity gate against position side, the always-send-both-levels behavior, the read-back-until-consistent semantics, and the dry_run sends-nothing behavior. This is rich, non-obvious context an agent cannot infer.

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?

The core purpose and mutation flag are front-loaded in the opening sentence, followed by crowding conditions, usage constraints, and sanity gate in logical order. The closing 'Verified live... ~450 ms each' is slightly beyond the essential contract, but there is no redundancy or filler elsewhere.

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 destructive mutation with no output schema, the description explains the return shape (previous and applied levels, position before/after, read-back verification), the failure modes (paper-only, sanity gate), and the dry-run path. An agent has everything needed to call this tool correctly on the first attempt, including a safe validation mode.

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%, so the baseline is 3, and the description adds genuinely useful cross-parameter semantics that schemas cannot express: 'Give symbol or position_id', 'at least one of stop_loss/take_profit', the omitted-value-keeps-current rule, and the ordering/side sanity gates. It does not narrate each individual parameter, but it doesn't need to given full schema coverage.

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 names the exact operation ('move the stop loss and/or take profit of an OPEN position via the broker adapter (editPositionBrackets)') and the mutation is signaled in the opening word MUTATES. It distinguishes itself from siblings like tv_place_order, tv_close_position, and tv_trading_status by scoping the resource to position stop-loss/take-profit brackets.

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?

Gives concrete invocation conditions: PAPER ONLY with a refusal on non-demo brokers, requires symbol or position_id plus at least one of stop_loss/take_profit, and recommends dry_run=true first. It does not explicitly route to alternative siblings or name a when-not condition, so it stops short of a full 5.

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