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

Adds real context beyond the annotations: the erasure happens 30 days after closing (so data lingers, it isn't immediately purged), and an organisation bearer token is required or the call fails with token_required. This complements destructiveHint=true without contradicting it.

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?

Two compact sentences, with the core action front-loaded and the retention/auth details following. No filler or repetition.

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?

With annotations covering the destructive/idempotent profile and an output schema handling return values, the description covers the remaining essentials: auth requirements and the 30-day lifecycle. Only the when-to-use routing is absent.

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 coverage is 100% and the watch_id description already names the format (w_...) and where it comes from (watch_need or list_watches). The description adds nothing further about parameters, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

"Closes a watch" states a specific verb and resource, and the title reinforces it. It is clearly distinct from siblings such as watch_need (creation) and get_watch (read), though it doesn't explicitly name them.

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?

Usage is implied through terminology ('closes', 'watch_id'), but there's no explicit guidance on when to close versus when to keep or update a watch, nor any mention of alternatives like watch_need or cancel_plan for related cleanup.

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