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

Adds significant context beyond annotations: names are immutable, tags replace only plain tags (conditional tagging rules unaffected), tool is not metered, and a free Prowlo account is required. These details help the agent anticipate side effects and prerequisites without contradicting the idempotent/non-destructive hints.

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 front-load the core actions followed by essential caveats. Every part earns its place, with no fluff or redundancy.

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 simple update tool with good schema and annotations, the description covers behavior, account requirements, and tag nuance. It doesn't describe return values, but no output schema exists and the return is likely self-evident. Slightly more detail on atomicity when both paused and tags are provided could push it to 5, but it's sufficiently complete.

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 already covers all parameters with 100% coverage, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that 'tags' replaces only plain tags and conditional tagging remains unaffected, and that clearing tags uses []. This nuance helps avoid misuse even though the schema is already descriptive.

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?

Clearly states the tool updates a Watcher by pausing/resuming and/or replacing tags, distinguishing it from create/delete/source-modification siblings. Also notes names cannot be changed, further clarifying scope.

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?

Implied usage is clear (use for pause/resume or tag updates), and it explicitly states names cannot be changed via this tool. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or mention when not to use, so it falls short of fully explicit guidelines.

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