update_position

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses the required API key, the partial-update nature of listed fields, and the closing behavior (status CLOSED + closePrice). It does not cover idempotency or response format, but the core mutation semantics are clearly stated.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence efficiently packs verb, resource, key updatable fields, close behavior, and auth requirement with no filler or redundancy.

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?

Given the moderate complexity, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, key parameter relationships, and authentication. It could mention expected response or error conditions, but the essential decision-making information is present.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful grouping and semantic context by explicitly tying 'close' to 'status CLOSED + closePrice', reinforcing the relationship already in the schema and highlighting the practical field combinations.

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 'Update' with the resource 'position' and enumerates the updatable fields (notes, entryPrice, shares, or close), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like add_position, delete_position, and list_portfolio.

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 conveys when to use the tool (updating an existing position's fields or closing it) and implicitly differentiates from add/delete/list by naming update-specific actions. However, it does not explicitly state exclusions or explicitly point to alternatives for creation/deletion.

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