manage_watchlist

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

Despite no annotations, description discloses key behaviors: 'add' performs a union merge (합집합 병합) with existing companies. It also notes that companies are manually populated. This adds significant transparency beyond the schema.

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?

Description is structured with an initial purpose statement, background context, and an Args section. It is slightly verbose but each sentence adds value, and it front-loads the core functionality.

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 simplicity (4 params, one required, output schema exists), the description provides sufficient context including action semantics and parameter dependencies. It covers the essential aspects for correct invocation.

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 0%, but description fully explains each parameter: action enum values, person required for show/add/remove, companies needed for add with merge behavior, and note as optional. This compensates entirely for missing schema descriptions.

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?

Description clearly states the tool manages a watchlist of person-company groups with specific actions (list/show/add/remove). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like find_actor_overlap by being a management tool versus an analysis tool.

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?

Description explains when to use: to save frequently watched person's associated companies for quick re-query via find_actor_overlap, due to DART's lack of reverse lookup. It provides clear context but does not explicitly exclude alternative tools.

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