添加自选组合

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

The description adds value beyond the annotations by disclosing that a valid login state is required and that the cube is added to the 'default' group rather than a custom one. Annotations already cover idempotency and non-destructiveness, so the auth requirement and default-group behavior are meaningful additions.

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 concise sentences with no redundant wording. The primary action is front-loaded, and the login requirement is a short, separate sentence that conveys essential context.

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 single-parameter mutation tool with a high-coverage schema, annotations, and an output schema, the description is complete. It covers the prerequisite (login), the target group (default), and the resource type (cube). No critical missing information remains 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 description coverage is 100%, with cube_symbol already described as a portfolio code obtainable from get_user_cubes. The tool description does not add additional parameter-level semantics, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb ('关注'), a specific resource ('雪球组合/cube'), and the action's target ('加入当前用户的「关注」默认分组'). It is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like add_watchlist_stock and add_watchlist_fund because it explicitly names the cube resource.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: to follow a cube and place it in the default watchlist group. It does not explicitly list alternative tools or when-not-to-use conditions, but the context is unambiguous enough that an agent can infer the appropriate use case.

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