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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is mostly covered. The description adds useful context by stating the concrete effect that the ping address stops answering. It does not add further detail about auth needs or irreversibility beyond the 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 definition is two short sentences with zero waste, and the core action is front-loaded. The second sentence adds a concrete behavioral effect rather than repeating structured data.

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?

This is a low-complexity removal tool with complete schema descriptions and annotations covering destructiveness and idempotency. The description explains the action and its immediate effect, which is adequate for correct invocation. It could mention that removal is final, but destructiveHint already signals that.

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%, so all three parameters, including the optional passport_token, are already documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb and resource: 'Stop watching a job.' It also adds the effect 'Its ping address stops answering,' which clarifies what removal means. It is clear enough to distinguish from heartbeat_add and heartbeat_status, though it does not explicitly contrast with heartbeat_update.

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 by saying 'Stop watching a job,' but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives. It doesn't clarify whether heartbeat_update could also stop monitoring, leaving the agent to infer the correct sibling tool.

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