close_position

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states the action (close) but omits important behavioral details: side effects on related orders, permissions required, irreversibility, and what 'ticket' refers to. The tool mutates state, but no guidance on consequences.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It directly communicates the core function.

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?

Despite having 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is minimal. It lacks details on idempotency, approval workflow, and return behavior. The description is insufficient for an AI agent to reliably use all parameters.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'ticket' and 'volume' (full/part) but provides no meaning for 'idempotency_key', 'approval_confirmed', or 'approval_request_id'. These parameters are critical for correct invocation and remain unexplained.

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 'Close' and resource 'open position', with scope 'in full or part by ticket'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'cancel_order' and 'get_positions'.

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 implies usage (close a position by ticket) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'cancel_order' or specify prerequisites such as obtaining a ticket from 'get_positions'.

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