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

The description contributes real behavior beyond the annotations by naming the required credential type (plan bearer token) and excluding x402 payment, which annotations do not cover. However, it doesn't say whether removal stops alerts immediately, errors on an unknown host, or returns anything, so mutation effects remain partly opaque.

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 no filler. The ordering is slightly off – it leads with credential trivia before stating the action, so an agent skimming the first clause reads auth rather than purpose first.

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?

For a small two-parameter mutation with annotations covering safety and idempotency, this is mostly sufficient. What's missing is outcome behavior: whether removal requires the host to already be watched and what errors or state changes result.

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 50% – the 'token' property has no description. The phrase 'Plan bearer token, never x402' directly compensates by telling the agent what credential form that parameter takes, which is the single most important ambiguity for this call.

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 second sentence gives a specific verb and resource: 'Removes one host from an alerts plan,' and 'one host' signals single-item scope. It's clearly the inverse of watch_add, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no statement of what happens if the host isn't currently watched, and no pointer to watch_list for verification. The only usage constraint is the token-type instruction ('Plan bearer token, never x402'), which is useful but is auth guidance rather than task routing.

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