tv_watchlist_sync

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true; the description adds nuance by specifying 'DESTRUCTIVE when it adds a symbol', indicating conditional behavior. The read part is safe, adding context beyond annotations.

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?

Two efficient sentences, front-loaded with main purpose and a critical warning. No wasted words.

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?

Covers main functionality and defaults but omits details about the return value (no output schema). For a combined read+add tool, knowing what is returned after syncing would enhance completeness.

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% (baseline 3). The description provides default values for both parameters ('defaults to active chart symbol' and 'default true') which are not in the schema descriptions, adding significant value.

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 tool reads the watchlist and optionally adds a symbol, with specific verb+resource and scope ('active watchlist'). This distinguishes it from siblings like tv_watchlist_read and tv_watchlist_add_symbol.

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 implies usage for combined read+add operations but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool vs the separate sibling tools. Lacks direct alternatives or exclusions.

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