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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true; the description adds genuinely new context about the authorization model ('any workspace member can change any watcher, matching the dashboard') and the immutability of the objective. It stops short of saying whether 'stop' permanently deletes or merely halts the watcher, which matters given destructiveHint=true.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action set and immediately followed by the key constraint and the permission model. 'Matching the dashboard' is mildly decorative but does convey the authorization precedent, so little is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the description covers the mutation scope, the immutable field, and permissions. What remains unsaid is the reversibility of 'stop' and any conditional requirement linking alerts to amend.

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 only 25% (just idempotency_key), so the description has to carry weight: it enumerates all four action values and ties 'alerts' to the amend action ('amend where its alerts go'). It does not state whether alerts is required for amend or ignored for other actions, and watcher_id gets no explanation, keeping it from a 5.

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 names concrete verbs (pause, resume, stop, amend) against a concrete resource (a watcher) and scopes the mutable surface to alerts only. It also distinguishes itself from refix_create_watcher by stating the objective cannot change.

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?

It gives an explicit when-not rule ('The objective cannot change; create a new watcher instead') that routes the agent to the correct sibling, plus the conditions under which each action applies. No inference required.

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