tcg_watchlist_close

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds no additional behavioral traits beyond stating the operation, such as side effects or authorization requirements. 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 front-loads the verb 'Mark'. It is concise but could be more specific (e.g., 'Close a watchlist entry'). No unnecessary words.

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 that annotations cover destructive and idempotent hints and an output schema exists, the description provides minimal context. Missing details on return values, prerequisites, or examples, but adequate for a simple mutation.

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?

The description does not mention any parameters explicitly. The input schema provides descriptions for 'reason' but not for 'watchlist_id'. With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds no value beyond the schema.

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 action (Mark a watchlist entry closed) and lists specific reasons (bought, thesis_invalidated, manual). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like tcg_watchlist_add or tcg_watchlist_get.

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 closing watchlist entries but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives or when not to use it. No context on prerequisites or error scenarios.

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