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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds a concrete retry instruction (reuse the idempotencyKey), which is useful, but it does not disclose what is destroyed, whether removal is reversible, or any auth requirements.

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 zero filler; the destructive action is front-loaded and the retry caveat follows immediately. Every clause earns its place.

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 explained, and annotations carry the destructive/idempotent safety profile. Still, for a destructive delete the description leaves consequences and scope unstated, and it does not compensate for the 0% parameter coverage.

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% and all three parameters are required, so the description carries the full documentation burden. It explains idempotencyKey usage on retry, but offers no meaning at all for brandId or watchId, leaving two of three parameters undocumented anywhere.

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') plus resource ('advertiser watch') and scope ('this brand's selected'), which cleanly distinguishes it from create_ad_watch, get_ad_watch and list_ad_watches. It does not, however, name an explicit alternative the way a 5-level description would.

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?

There is no guidance on when to delete a watch versus creating or fetching one, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The only usage instruction ('Reuse idempotencyKey on retry') concerns retry mechanics rather than tool selection, so an agent gets little help deciding when this tool is appropriate.

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