sc_watchlist_remove

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It correctly indicates this is a write operation ('Remove') and discloses the required environment variable. However, it does not mention whether the operation is idempotent, what happens if the ISIN is not on the watchlist, or whether the output schema contains confirmation data. The minimal transparency is adequate but not thorough.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the tool's exact purpose, and the second covers a critical prerequisite. Every sentence earns its place, and the entire description is front-loaded and to the point.

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?

Given the tool's two parameters (one optional), 0% schema coverage, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It lacks context on the optional 'portfolio_id' parameter (e.g., default behavior, relationship to portfolios), does not address error scenarios (e.g., removing a non-existent entry), and does not leverage the existence of an output schema to set expectations. The description is too sparse for an agent to use this tool reliably without additional context.

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%, so the description must compensate for explaining parameters. It does not mention 'isin' or 'portfolio_id' at all, nor explain their roles or defaults. While 'isin' is a standard identifier, the optional 'portfolio_id' is left entirely unexplained (e.g., what does null mean? Which watchlist does it affect?). This is a significant gap.

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 verb ('Remove') and the resource ('security from the Scalable Capital watchlist'). This directly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'sc_watchlist_add' (adds a security) and 'sc_watchlist' (presumably views the watchlist). The purpose is unambiguous and specific.

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 includes a prerequisite ('Requires SC_MCP_ENABLE_WRITES=true'), which is a usage guideline. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'Use this to remove a single security; to add one, use sc_watchlist_add'). The context is implied by the tool name and siblings, but no direct instruction is given.

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