watchlist_add_bulk

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It usefully reveals sequential execution and per-symbol reporting, but omits details like failure handling, idempotency, or result format, leaving room for ambiguity.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with verb and scope, zero filler. Every word contributes meaning.

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 bulk add tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides enough context: action, scope, sequence, and result reporting. Lacks an example or detailed result format, but is mostly sufficient.

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 covers 100% of parameters with a clear description ('Symbols to add'). The tool description adds minimal extra meaning, confirming the array is for multiple symbols but not enriching beyond the schema.

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 identifies the action (add), the resource (multiple symbols to watchlist), and the bulk scope, distinguishing it from watchlist_add and watchlist_remove_bulk.

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?

States 'multiple symbols' which provides clear context for when to use this tool (bulk vs single add). No explicit exclusions or alternatives are named, but the implication is strong enough from the sibling names.

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