watchlist_import

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Import' without mentioning that this can modify/overwrite the existing watchlist (replace mode) or that dry_run exists. The schema covers these details, but the description itself fails to warn about potential destructive side effects, which is a significant gap.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that concisely captures the tool's core purpose. Every word earns its place with no filler or redundant phrasing.

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 a 3-parameter schema with no annotations and no output schema, the description is overly terse. It does not explain the import behavior, mention that the file should come from watchlist_export (though the schema does), or clarify any return values or effects. A more complete description would at least note the merge/replace distinction and dry-run capability.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema. It does not mention mode, dry_run, or file_path, but the schema already thoroughly documents each parameter and their defaults.

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 action (import), the target (symbols into the TradingView watchlist), and the source (from a JSON file). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like watchlist_add or watchlist_add_bulk by emphasizing the JSON file source.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Unlike the calibration example that explicitly names alternative tools, here there is no mention of scenarios or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name and file_path schema alone.

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