change_watchlist

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, open-world mutation, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that operations run through managed custody and need a pre-built payload, but says nothing about auth requirements, error behavior when removing a token not on the list, or whether the change is idempotent.

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?

Two tight sentences with the operation front-loaded and the prerequisite second; nothing is redundant. It is arguably under-specified rather than over-long, which is the better failure mode here.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and a mandatory encrypted payload, the definition never tells the agent how to obtain the pre-built computedData (no pointer to a build/skill/guide sibling). Combined with no return-value or error context, this leaves a real gap for correct invocation, though the annotations cover the safety dimension.

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 both computedData and the optional chainId are documented in the schema. The description only adds the qualifier "pre-built" for computedData, which is a marginal gain over "Encrypted computedData payload" and gives no guidance on how that payload is produced.

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?

States a specific verb pair (add/remove) and the exact resource (the user's watchlist), so the agent knows this is a watchlist mutation tool. It stops short of naming the read-only sibling get_watchlist as the alternative, so differentiation relies on the agent inferring from the verb.

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?

"Requires pre-built encrypted computedData" gives one real prerequisite, which is more than most definitions offer. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over get_watchlist or other token tools (import_token, get_token_details), leaving the choice implied.

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