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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the org-key authorization requirement, which is genuine context, but says nothing about whether removal affects stored scan history or in-flight scans. Given the annotation coverage, this is adequate but thin.

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 short sentences with the action front-loaded and the prerequisite trailing. No filler, no repetition of the title, and nothing that could be cut without losing information.

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, non-read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and prerequisite, which is most of what an agent needs. It omits whether the watch must pre-exist, error behavior for unwatched servers, and whether unwatching purges collected data.

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% for the single parameter, with the schema itself documenting the accepted "mcp_... id or endpoint URL" formats. The description only alludes to the server implicitly and instead mentions an "org key" that is not a declared parameter, adding no semantic detail beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: removing a server from a watchlist, which is the clear inverse of sibling scan_watch and distinct from scan_watchlist. It is unambiguous about the operation, though it never names the sibling tools it complements, so sibling differentiation is by inference rather than explicit contrast.

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 only guidance is the prerequisite "Needs the org key," which is useful context but not a when-to-use directive. There is no statement about when to unwatch, whether the watch must already exist, or which sibling (scan_watch, scan_watchlist) to use instead. Usage is implied rather than explained.

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