avanza_scalp_watchlist_set

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that this writes to local paper session state rather than live broker state and that the operation is an upsert ('Store/update'). However, it does not disclose whether an existing watchlist is fully replaced or merged, whether a paper session must be active, or what the function returns.

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 one tight sentence with the action front-loaded. It contains no filler and each phrase adds meaningful context: action, resource, payload shape, and storage scope.

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 two-parameter local-state write tool, the description gives enough for an agent to make a correct call: what to store, where, and the required payload. The main omissions are replacement semantics and return behavior, but the tool's complexity is low and the sibling getter clarifies the overall workflow.

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 0%, but the description partially compensates: 'named scalp watchlist' maps to watchlist_id, and 'orderbook IDs + optional labels' maps to the items array. It does not explain orderbook_id format/source or the semantics of watchlist_id beyond being a name, so parameter understanding remains incomplete.

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 phrase ('Store/update') and names the exact resource: a named scalp watchlist containing orderbook IDs and optional labels. It also specifies the scope ('local paper session state'), clearly distinguishing this setter from the sibling avanza_scalp_watchlist_get.

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 implies usage as the write-side of a get/set watchlist pair, but it never explicitly names the sibling avanza_scalp_watchlist_get or states when not to use this tool. Some inference is required, which is a moderate gap.

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