set_risk_policy

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly discloses strict cap enforcement (no tolerance, final value must be <= cap after rounding), patch preservation semantics, and the explicit clearing mechanism. These are critical behavioral traits beyond the schema, though it does not address permissions, rate limits, or error behavior.

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 dense sentences covering purpose, defaults, strict caps, and patch/clear semantics with no filler. It is well-structured and front-loaded, though slightly lengthy in Turkish.

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 9-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core policy fields and clearing behavior but omits mention of account_id, request_id, and idempotency_key. It also does not describe the return value or error cases, leaving some ambiguity for correct invocation.

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 description adds meaning for the three primary policy fields and the three clear booleans (explaining strict caps and clearing). However, schema description coverage is only 33%, and the description does not explain account_id, request_id, or idempotency_key, leaving these parameters undocumented and not fully compensating for the coverage gap.

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 tool's purpose with the specific verb 'tanımlar' (defines/sets) and resource 'risk policy' for an account, listing the affected fields (max_notional_per_order, max_aggregate_exposure, allowed_symbols). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_risk_policy (read) and override_risk_policy by detailing patch semantics and explicit clear flags.

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 usage context: the default state is empty/unlimited, values not sent in a patch are preserved, and clearing only happens via explicit booleans. This implicitly guides when to use this tool for partial updates. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like override_risk_policy or state when not to use it.

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