close_position

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses session-bound account enforcement, non-empty position ID validation, positive volume validation, and partial-close support. It does not explicitly mention irreversibility or permissions, but 'Close' itself conveys the core destructive action.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by four bullet points that each add distinct value. There is no filler or redundant restatement of 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?

For a 3-parameter mutation tool with an output schema available, the description covers the essential behavior, validation rules, auth binding, and partial-close semantics. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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 coverage is already 100%, and the description adds meaning beyond the schema: account_id is session-bound, position_id must be a non-empty string, and volume is optional, positive, and enables partial closes. This gives an agent useful operational context for each parameter.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Close a cTrader position.' It clearly distinguishes closing a position from order-level operations like cancel_order, and the partial-close note further clarifies scope. The purpose is unambiguous and not a tautology.

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 intended use is clear: call this when you want to close a cTrader position, including partial closes via the volume parameter. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios, but the context is direct enough that an agent can infer when it applies.

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