watchlist_add

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (not read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description need not restate it. The description adds that entries persist and are tracked over time, but does not say what happens on a duplicate keyword or whether a prior entry is overwritten — the one behavior an idempotent add tool should clarify.

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?

Three short, front-loaded lines with no filler; the purpose sentence comes first and each parameter line is a compact definition. Slightly terse for a mutation tool, but nothing is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and annotations cover the mutation/safety profile. All three parameters are semantically covered, leaving only duplicate-handling behavior as a minor gap for a 3-param idempotent add tool.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the full burden and largely does: keywords accepts comma-separated terms or topic ids, geo is the location with blank meaning default, and note is an optional label like a client or campaign. Only keyword multiplicity/format edge cases (spacing, mixed ids and terms) remain unspecified.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Put terms on the watchlist') and ties it to a downstream sibling, watchlist_report, which tracks direction over time. It is clearly the add-side counterpart to watchlist_remove, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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 link to watchlist_report implies the use case (set up tracking), but there is no explicit when-to-use / when-not guidance and no mention of alternatives such as watchlist_remove or watchlist_report for reading results. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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