删除自选股票

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

Annotations already flag this as destructive and idempotent; the description adds that the deletion applies to the current user's data and that authentication is required. It confirms the destructive nature with 删除, which is consistent with destructiveHint. No contradiction with annotations is present.

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 short sentences, with the action and resource front-loaded and the login requirement stated separately. There is no filler or redundant restatement.

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 one-parameter mutation with output schema and safety annotations, this is close to complete: it identifies scope, target, and auth requirement. A minor gap is that it doesn't specify behavior when the symbol isn't in any watchlist or how multiple watchlist groups are handled, but idempotentHint and the simple schema reduce that risk.

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 the schema fully documents the symbol parameter and provides examples. The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond identifying the affected item as a stock, so the schema carries the semantic burden as expected.

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 names a specific action (删除/delete) and a precise resource (a stock from the current user's watchlist group), which distinguishes it from siblings like add_watchlist_stock, remove_watchlist_fund, and remove_watchlist_cube. It adds the 'current user' scoping rather than just restating the tool name.

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 intended use is implied by the purpose statement, but there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this tool over alternatives such as remove_watchlist_fund or remove_watchlist_cube. The only stated condition is that a valid login is required, which is a prerequisite rather than a full usage policy.

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