Remove from Sharelist

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows this is a destructive, repeatable operation. The description adds 'Returns upstream API response on success', which hints at return behavior, but does not clarify partial-removal semantics or error handling. It provides minimal extra context beyond the 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?

The description is two sentences, front-loads the action and resource, and contains zero waste. It is efficiently structured for an agent to quickly parse the 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?

With no output schema and a destructive operation, the description could benefit from more context about effects (e.g., permanence, partial removals). However, the annotations cover the destructive and idempotent aspects, and the schema fully documents parameters. The description is adequate for a simple removal but leaves some ambiguity around return details and edge cases.

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% for all three parameters, including detailed descriptions for id, symbols, and _jq. The description's 'Provide symbols to remove' reiterates the symbols parameter without adding new meaning. Since the schema already fully documents parameters, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Remove') and resource ('securities from a community sharelist by id'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It distinguishes itself from siblings like sharelist_add (adding) and sharelist_delete (removing the whole list) by focusing on removing specific symbols.

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 no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives guidance. It does not mention sharelist_add or sharelist_delete, nor any condition under which a different tool would be appropriate. The only usage hint is 'Provide symbols to remove', which is a parameter instruction, not a selection criterion.

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