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

Adds real context beyond the annotations: no monitor budget is spent, the response is the updated dependency, and repeat calls with the same plan id are non-duplicating. It could go further by stating what happens to components that are dropped from the watch list, since destructiveHint=true signals removal — that specific loss is never spelled out.

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?

Four tight sentences, each carrying a distinct load: precondition, return value, quota cost, idempotency, and exclusion. Usage gating is front-loaded ahead of the exclusion.

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?

Only two fully documented parameters and no output schema, and the description still covers the return value ('the dependency as it now watches') and cost. The remaining gap is the destructive side effect — which components are removed — left implicit against a destructiveHint=true annotation.

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 both parameters are explained there, including the instruction to show the confirm sentence to the user first. The description only reinforces plan_id idempotency ('the same plan id returns the first result') without adding syntax or format detail, so baseline 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?

Names a specific verb+resource ('changes which components of a dependency the site already watches, or how serious each is') and explicitly contrasts with the sibling add_dependency, which handles dependencies not yet watched. An agent can route between change vs. add without opening either schema.

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?

Gives a hard precondition ('when the user has confirmed a plan_dependency plan'), an explicit exclusion ('Not for adding a dependency the site does not watch yet'), and names the alternative tool to use instead. When-to-use, when-not, and alternatives are all present.

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