briefing_stock_watchlist_set

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden and does well by disclosing the auto-recommend flow, return of recommendations for confirmation, and the optin consent/notice requirement. It doesn't describe whether updates overwrite or merge existing data, but overall it provides meaningful behavioral context.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with purpose and trigger phrases. The three short paragraphs each earn their place, though the sector value list could have been left to the schema. It's efficient without being terse.

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 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the key context: when to call, what happens with optional fields, and the consent flow for optin_sources. It doesn't specify the full return format beyond the focus recommendation, but this is adequately complete for the tool's complexity.

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. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining the behavior when 'focus' is omitted, clarifying that 'optin_sources' requires explicit user request, and listing common sector values. This meaningfully supplements the parameter descriptions.

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 '添加或更新关注的股票' (add or update watched stocks), which is a specific verb plus resource. It provides concrete user trigger phrases that distinguish this from other watchlist tools, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'briefing_stock_watchlist_update_focus'.

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 gives explicit trigger examples ('帮我关注苹果', '加一只股票') and states when to call. It also explains conditional behavior for empty focus and optin_sources, including the requirement for explicit user consent. However, it doesn't mention when NOT to use this tool versus alternatives.

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