change_watchlist

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the managed-custody path and the encrypted payload requirement, but never explains how 'add' versus 'remove' is selected, whether the operation is reversible, or what authorization the user needs.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and the hard prerequisite. No filler or restatement of the tool name.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description omits critical context: how add/remove is distinguished, what a successful call returns, and what failure modes exist. It is far too thin for a state-changing operation.

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 parameters (chainId, computedData) are already documented in the schema. The description adds only that computedData must be pre-built and encrypted, which is marginal added meaning over the schema text.

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 (add/remove) and resource (token on the user's watchlist) with a note that it runs through managed custody. The read counterpart get_watchlist exists in the sibling list but is not named, so the description doesn't fully route the agent between them.

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 only guidance is a prerequisite ('Requires pre-built encrypted computedData'), which implies a payload must be built first via something like build_trade_payload, but that sibling is never named. There is no statement of when to use this versus get_watchlist or import_token.

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