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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully adds the ownership/auth requirement via x-api-key, which is not in the schema. However, it does not disclose side effects, reversibility, idempotency, or error behavior for a mutation-like operation.

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 sentences with no filler. The action is front-loaded and the auth constraint is stated in the second sentence, which is an appropriately compact structure.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the operation and a key ownership requirement. Minor gaps like idempotency or response behavior remain, but they are not critical for basic correct invocation.

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 id parameter is already described as coming from census_watch_subscribe. The description adds meaningful context by requiring that the x-api-key owns the watch, clarifying which id values are acceptable.

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 verb 'Deactivate' plus the resource 'a watch by id' clearly states the action and target. It is easy to distinguish from the sibling tools census_watch_subscribe and census_watch_list because it names the inverse operation 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?

The description clearly conveys that this tool is for deactivating a specific watch by its id. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the operation is clear enough that an agent can infer when to use it.

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