watchlist.rebalance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the removal action but does not explicitly state that changes are permanent or if confirmation is required. The dry_run parameter is mentioned in the schema, but the description could add more context about consequences.

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. It is front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the usage context. Every sentence serves a purpose.

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 (3 required parameters, no output schema), the description covers the purpose, parameters, and use case. It could mention the return value or impact on the watchlist, but the schema descriptions already clarify the parameters.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions, which already define min_score, min_win_rate, and dry_run accurately.

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 action (analyze and remove underperformers), the resource (traders on watchlist), and the criteria (conviction score or win rate below threshold). It is specific and distinguishable from sibling tools like watchlist.add or watchlist.list.

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 says 'Use to keep your watchlist focused on high-quality traders,' providing clear context. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use instructions or alternatives, e.g., if only viewing is needed.

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