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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds a practical retry directive ('Reuse idempotencyKey on retry'), which is genuinely useful even though it restates the idempotency hint; it does not say what is destroyed or whether auth/permissions are required beyond the annotation signal.

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, front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by the single most important operational caveat. No filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations fully cover the destructive/idempotent profile. For a 3-required-param mutation tool the definition is close to sufficient, with the residual gap being the unexplained brandId/watchId semantics and any permission requirements.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, yet it only touches idempotencyKey and tells the agent nothing about brandId or watchId semantics. The schema's uuid pattern for watchId hints at its nature, but the description leaves two of three parameters unexplained.

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?

States a specific verb ('Remove') and a specific resource ('this brand's selected advertiser watch'), so an agent knows exactly what gets deleted. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling delete tools (delete_intelligence_target, delete_saved_ad) or from create/get/list_ad_watch, but the name and phrasing make the target unambiguous.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus create_ad_watch, get_ad_watch, or the other delete_* tools, and no prerequisites or exclusions stated. The only operational note is a retry instruction, which is not usage guidance.

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