Remove From Watchlist

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

Annotations already indicate this is destructive and idempotent. The description adds that the destructive action is scoped to removing a symbol from the watchlist, but it does not disclose edge-case behavior such as what happens if the symbol is not present. This is adequate but not rich.

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, direct sentence with no filler. It is appropriately sized for the simplicity of the operation.

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?

The tool is simple, both parameters are fully documented in the schema, annotations cover the destructive and idempotent behavior, and an output schema exists. The description is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 both 'symbol' and 'data_source' clearly described in the input schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the schema carries the full burden.

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 action ('Remove'), a specific resource ('symbol'), and a clear scope ('user's watchlist'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_watchlist and add_to_watchlist.

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 makes the tool's purpose obvious, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention that add_to_watchlist is the inverse operation. Usage guidance is only implied by the tool name and sibling context.

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