PCM

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a 'Set' operation (implying mutation) but doesn't disclose important behavioral traits: whether this requires specific permissions, if changes are reversible, potential rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. The description is minimal and lacks critical operational context.

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 maximally concise - a single sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the essential action and resource, making it immediately scannable and efficient. Every word earns its place in this minimal but complete statement of purpose.

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 mutation tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error conditions, side effects, or operational constraints. Given the complexity of trading configuration and the lack of structured metadata, the description should provide more complete contextual information.

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%, providing complete parameter documentation. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema - it doesn't explain relationships between parameters, provide examples of valid combinations, or clarify edge cases. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the work.

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 clearly states the action ('Set') and resource ('margin mode for futures trading'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'set-leverage' or 'set-market-type' which also configure trading parameters, leaving some ambiguity about when to choose this specific tool.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing an authenticated session), typical use cases, or comparison to sibling tools like 'set-leverage' that might be used in similar trading configuration scenarios.

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