tcg_watchlist_add

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

The description states the return value (watchlist_id) but does not disclose other behavioral traits such as side effects, authorization needs, or rate limits. The annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) provide minimal safety context, and the description does not add significant behavioral insights beyond the return.

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-loading the core action and return value. Every sentence provides essential information without redundancy or filler.

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 tool has 5 parameters (1 required), an output schema, and moderate complexity, the description is too brief. It omits explanation for horizon and target_currency, and does not clarify how the target price interacts with the watchlist. While the output schema may return the ID, the description should provide more context for the agent to correctly fill parameters.

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 compensates partially by mentioning 'target buy price + thesis', which corresponds to two key parameters. However, it does not explain other parameters (horizon, target_currency) or their constraints (e.g., enum values, validation).

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 states the verb 'add' and the resource 'card to watchlist', and specifies the key parameters (target buy price, thesis) and return value (watchlist ID). This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like tcg_watchlist_close, tcg_watchlist_get, etc.

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 for adding a card to the watchlist, which is distinct from listing or closing. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites.

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