swarmtrade_transition_trade

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the need for version control (optimistic concurrency) but lacks details on conflict behavior, side effects, or idempotency. The behavioral transparency is adequate but minimal.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose. No redundant 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?

Lacks output description or error scenarios. For a complex state transition tool, more context (e.g., what happens on success, version conflict errors) would improve completeness. Sibling tools cover specific transitions, but this general tool needs more.

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?

Input schema covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), including possible values for next_state and explanation of quote. The tool description adds the context of requiring version, reinforcing from_version. No additional semantic value beyond schema.

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 verb 'Advance' and the resource 'a trade to its next state', distinguishing it from other swarmtrade tools like create or dispute. The mention of 'negotiation protocol' adds context.

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 hints at when to use (when version control is needed) but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like swarmtrade_confirm_delivery or swarmtrade_dispute_trade, which may be specific transition types. No guidance on when not to use or prerequisites.

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