modify_order

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 approval condition based on policy settings, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not detail other constraints like required permissions or error scenarios.

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 front-loaded with the purpose and uses a separate paragraph for the behavioral nuance. It is concise but could be slightly more streamlined without losing clarity.

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?

With 8 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main functionality and one behavioral nuance but leaves several parameters undocumented (e.g., idempotency_key) and provides no details on return values or error handling.

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?

The description adds meaning for sl, tp, price, expiration, and approval fields by explaining their roles in modifying orders. However, it does not cover idempotency_key, and the schema coverage is 0%, so more detail could be beneficial.

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 tool modifies SL/TP on positions or price/expiration on pending orders. It distinguishes from siblings like place_order, cancel_order, and close_position.

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 explains the consent gate behavior but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., place_order for new orders, cancel_order for cancellations). The usage context is implicit.

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