Permanently removes a recurring brand-audit watch by watchId. Owner-scoped — a watchId owned by another principal surfaces as notFound. Returns confirmation of deletion.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| watchId | Yes | Watch ID returned by register_brand_audit_watch. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| score | Yes | ||
| passed | Yes | ||
| partial | No | ||
| category | Yes | ||
| findings | Yes | ||
| checkStatus | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, which are confirmed by the description's 'permanently removes' and 'owner-scoped' statements. The description adds value by detailing the 'notFound' behavior for mismatched owners and that it returns confirmation, which annotations do not cover. No contradictions.
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 three concise sentences, each adding unique value: what the tool does, ownership scope and error behavior, and return value. No waste, front-loaded with the primary action.
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's simplicity (single parameter, clear destructive action, output schema present), the description covers the key aspects: what it does, scoping constraints, and confirmation of deletion. It could mention that the operation is idempotent (though annotations cover this), but overall it's sufficient for the agent to use correctly.
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 parameter count is only 1 (watchId). The description adds meaning by stating the watchId is from register_brand_audit_watch, which connects the parameter to the registration step, but this is not essential since the schema already describes it adequately. Baseline 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 uses a specific verb ('removes') with a clear resource ('recurring brand-audit watch by watchId'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'list_brand_audit_watches' (listing) and 'register_brand_audit_watch' (creation) by explicitly stating it's for permanent deletion.
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 clearly states the tool is owner-scoped and that a mismatch with the owner results in a 'notFound' response. It does not explicitly mention when NOT to use this tool or suggest alternatives, but the context from sibling names and the clear scope make usage straightforward.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, with detailed descriptions that help differentiate overlapping areas (e.g., check_dane vs check_dane_https). However, there are sets of similar tools (brand audit, OSINT, polling) that could cause confusion if descriptions are not carefully read.
The naming is mostly readable but inconsistent: many check_* tools follow a verb_noun pattern, but there are also noun_verb names (scan_domain, cymru_asn), bare verbs (generate), and varied patterns for async operations (discover_brand_domains_start vs discover_brand_domains).
With 80 tools, the server feels overstuffed. It covers multiple domains (DNS, email, brand, OSINT, M365) that could benefit from separation. The high number includes many polling/status tools that add overhead.
The server covers core DNS and email security checks thoroughly, including many edge cases (e.g., BIMI, MTA-STS, subdomain takeover). However, there are gaps like lack of direct DNS record management and some OSINT tools are restricted to operator deployment, leaving agents with dead ends.
