edit_order

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 usefully reveals that the operation targets open orders and avoids a manual cancel/re-place cycle. However, it does not disclose potential side effects such as loss of queue priority, rejection on partially filled orders, restrictions on changing certain fields, or what happens to the order ID. Some of this nuance is important for a trading tool.

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 a single, well-structured sentence with no filler. The core action, target resource, and key behavioral distinction are front-loaded. Every word contributes to understanding.

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?

This is a 7-parameter state-changing tool with no annotations and no output schema, so the description needs to carry more weight. It adequately states what the tool does and the basic constraint that the order must be open, but it leaves gaps around return values, failure modes, and how the various parameters interact (e.g., amount vs contracts, trigger_price applicability). The schema covers parameter meaning, but the overall usage context is not fully complete.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond the schema: it mentions 'price, amount, or other parameters' but does not clarify when to use amount vs contracts, nor does it add guidance about trigger_price or flag interactions. The schema already documents each parameter, so the description neither helps nor hurts.

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 a specific verb ('Modify'), a clear resource ('existing open order'), and names the key fields ('price, amount, or other parameters'). It also distinguishes itself from the cancel-and-replace workflow by explicitly saying 'without cancelling and re-placing', making it easy to tell apart from cancel_order and buy/sell.

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 phrase 'without cancelling and re-placing' provides clear context that this tool should be used when the goal is to adjust an open order in place rather than cancel and create a new one. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer cancel_order or buy/sell instead, so it lacks a formal exclusion list.

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