approve_pending_order

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and does so excellently: it discloses that this is a real-money mutation, explains daemon-side sizing using risk_pct and equity, and states the idempotency mechanism that prevents duplicate orders on retry. This goes well beyond a generic 'approve order' description.

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 three concise sentences: action, sizing, and idempotency/risk. Every sentence adds value with no redundant filler, and the purpose is front-loaded.

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 action, real-money risk, sizing logic, and idempotency, which is sufficient for the tool's complexity. It omits return values and failure behavior, but with no output schema and a straightforward action, this is not a critical gap. The only notable omission is detailed parameter purpose.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, and the description only indirectly hints at order_id via 'pending:<order_id> key' and idempotency. It does not explain request_id or clarify the exact relationship between idempotency_key and the pending key, leaving the agent to infer parameter meanings.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'approves the pending order and opens it as a REAL order.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like reject_pending_order and place_order.

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 explicitly warns to call only with the user's explicit approval ('yalnızca kullanıcının açık onayıyla çağrılmalı'), providing a clear when-not-to-use constraint. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the context makes the intended use obvious.

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