Remove a symbol from your watchlist (writes to your account)

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

Annotations already declare destructive/not-readOnly/idempotent, and the description adds genuinely new context: a missing symbol is a silent no-op, the return value is the post-change symbol list, and writes are rate limited per connection and recorded on the account. That is exactly the operational context annotations cannot express.

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?

Four sentences, each carrying distinct information: trigger, targeting logic, no-op behavior, and side effects/return. The trigger is front-loaded and nothing is redundant with the title.

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 two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers targeting, idempotency behavior, return shape ('returns the list's symbols after the change'), and rate-limit/audit side effects. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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%, so baseline is 3; the description goes slightly beyond by explaining the watchlist_id fallback precedence (named list, else default list, else the only list the account has) and the symbol example semantics of a no-op. It does not add format/syntax detail, so not a 5.

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 and resource ('Removes the symbol from the list') plus the scope resolution (named watchlist_id, else default list). An agent can immediately distinguish this from add_watchlist_symbol and list_watchlists without opening any schema.

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?

Opens with an explicit trigger: 'Call this when the user asks to stop watching a coin or remove it from their watchlist' — clear when-to-use guidance. It lacks an explicit alternative/exclusion clause, though the routing to watchlist_id and list_watchlists is implicit.

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