briefing_stock_watchlist_update_focus

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that add and remove operations can be combined and lists all valid focus-area IDs, which is valuable behavioral context. However, it does not explain side effects, whether the stock must already be on the watchlist, or what the response looks like, leaving some ambiguity for a mutation tool.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states purpose, the second provides usage nuance, and the third lists valid values. Every sentence earns its place, with no fluff or repetition of schema details.

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?

For a simple update tool with full schema parameter coverage and no output schema, the description is largely complete: it covers purpose, trigger scenarios, parameter behavior, and valid IDs. It could be improved by stating whether the stock must already exist in the watchlist or what the tool returns, but these are minor gaps given the tool's simplicity.

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 meaningful semantics beyond the schema: it clarifies that add_focus and remove_focus are ID lists that can be passed simultaneously, and it enumerates all valid IDs (executive_trades, earnings, etc.) that are not defined as enums in the schema. The trigger examples also map user intent to specific parameter usage.

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 uses a specific verb ('调整' / adjust) and resource ('某只股票的关注侧重面' / a stock's focus areas), and provides real user utterances ('AAPL 不看供应链了', 'CBA 加上分析师评级') that make the tool's purpose immediately identifiable. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling watchlist tools, which handle broader watchlist set/get/remove operations.

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 explicitly states when to call the tool: '用户说...等时调用' (call when user says...), giving concrete trigger examples. It also explains that add_focus and remove_focus can be passed together, but it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternative tools.

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