watchlist_add

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the key trait via 'SIDE EFFECTS: STATE_MUTATING' plus a validity constraint. However it omits idempotency (behavior when the symbol is already present), error behavior, and which watchlist is targeted if multiple exist.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, followed by labeled WHEN/SIDE EFFECTS/LIMITATIONS sections. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 single-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers purpose, trigger, mutation side effect, and a validity constraint. It is nearly self-sufficient, only missing idempotency/error detail.

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 coverage is 100% and the single param already carries format examples (AAPL, BTCUSD, ES1!, NYMEX:CL1!). The description adds no syntax or format meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

It states a specific verb ('Add') and resource ('financial instrument/ticker to the active TradingView watchlist'), so an agent immediately knows this is the write counterpart to watchlist_get. It stops short of naming that sibling explicitly, but the scope is unambiguous.

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?

'WHEN TO USE: Call when tracking a newly discovered symbol for continued monitoring' gives a clear triggering context. It does not name alternatives (e.g., watchlist_get for reading) or state when NOT to call, so it falls short of the top band.

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