modify_order

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the core mutation (price/quantity correction) and market restrictions, but does not disclose side effects, reversibility, permission requirements, or confirmation behavior. This is adequate but shallow.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and immediately followed by an important market constraint. There is no redundant or irrelevant information.

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?

The description covers the core purpose and market-specific rules, and the schema provides detailed parameter semantics including the confirmation flag. For a mutation tool with no output schema, it is mostly complete, though it does not specify return values or error behavior.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage with descriptive text for all 6 parameters. The description's mention of price/quantity and market-specific applicability does not add significant semantic value beyond the schema, so baseline 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 uses the specific verb '정정합니다' (corrects/modifies) and identifies the resource as '기존 주문' (existing order). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like create_order and cancel_order by focusing on modification, and adds market-specific scope (domestic vs US stocks).

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 clear context for when to use this tool—when modifying an existing order—and specifies market-based constraints. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternative tools such as cancel_order or create_order, so guidance on alternatives is not fully explicit.

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