amend_order

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden, and it does so well: it states that the account ID is bound to the authenticated session, order ID is validated, only supported amendment parameters are allowed, and the response includes updated order state. It does not cover error behavior or reversibility, but the disclosed validations and response contract are genuinely useful.

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 description is tight: one clear opening sentence followed by four meaningful bullets. Every line adds distinct information, and the most important action is front-loaded. There is no redundant or filler content.

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 four-parameter mutation tool with a complete schema and an output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral context: validation, session binding, supported parameters, and response content. It could add when-to-use guidance or amendment limitations, but nothing critical is missing for a competent agent to call it correctly.

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 schema already explains the parameters: order_id, account_id, optional price, and optional volume. The description adds no per-parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 starts with a clear verb and resource: 'Amend an existing cTrader order.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_order and cancel_order. The added bullets about validation and response state reinforce the specific purpose without ambiguity.

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?

The phrase 'existing cTrader order' implies this is for modifying orders that already exist, not for creating or canceling them. However, it never explicitly states when to prefer this tool over alternatives, nor does it name any sibling or exclusion condition.

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