Update Watchlist Group

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds context about what specific modifications are possible (rename, add/remove/replace securities). It does not contradict 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 a single sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the core verb and resource. Every word earns its place with no fluff.

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 lack of output schema, the description covers the main operations but lacks details on response format or side effects. For a simple update tool, it is mostly complete, but could mention the need for a valid id (already in schema) or confirm behavior on empty securities.

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%, but the description summarizes the actions (rename via name, modify securities via securities and mode) which adds meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. It could elaborate on mode interactions but still adds 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 specifies the verb 'Update' and the resource 'watchlist group', and lists the specific operations: rename, add, remove, or replace securities. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_watchlist_group and delete_watchlist_group.

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 when modifying an existing group, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., create or delete). It also lacks guidance on prerequisites like the group must exist or how to use the mode parameter correctly.

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