Update Order

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, idempotent=false, destructive=false, openWorld=true, but the description adds context annotations cannot: it overwrites live order parameters, each distinct `newPrice` produces a new state, and a wallet-signature identity (owner) is required. It also states the return shape and the preconditions for failure, which goes well beyond the annotation bar.

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?

Four dense sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the return shape, then side effects, then alternatives and preconditions. Every sentence adds a decision-relevant fact; there is no filler or repetition of the schema.

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?

Although an output schema exists (so return values need not be described), the description still summarizes the return shape and covers the mutation, identity requirement, non-idempotency, failure states, and the alternative workflow. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this correctly is missing.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds semantic constraints the schema only implies: the update is partial, the caller must be the order's owner (signature identity), and `orderId` must refer to an editable order. It does not add syntax or units beyond what the schema already documents for `newPrice` (SUN) and `receiver` (TRON address pattern).

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Update an open order by `orderId` with partial fields') and names the exact mutable fields, so an agent can tell it apart from `tronsave_cancel_order` or `tronsave_create_order` without reading the schema. The scope restriction ('open order') is front-loaded.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: 'Prefer this over cancel+recreate when only price/receiver should change' names the alternative and the selecting condition. It also prescribes a prerequisite ('Verify state with `tronsave_get_order` first') and enumerates failure cases (fulfilled, cancelled, non-editable).

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