Remove a recall watch pattern for this API key. Requires an API key.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pattern | Yes | watch pattern to remove |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pattern | Yes | ||
| removed | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already signal that the operation is destructive and idempotent, so the description is not required to restate that. It adds the beyond-schema detail that an API key is required and that the pattern is scoped to the API key, but it does not disclose side effects such as whether removing a pattern stops future notifications. This is acceptable but modest.
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 communicate the action and the authentication prerequisite with no filler. Every word contributes.
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-required-parameter destructive tool with an output schema and strong annotations, the description covers the essential operation and auth context. It could mention the complementary add/list tools, but nothing necessary for invoking the tool correctly is missing.
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?
The only parameter, 'pattern', is fully described in the schema as 'watch pattern to remove', so the description adds no new semantic detail. With 100% schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 names a specific action ('Remove'), a concrete resource ('recall watch pattern'), and a scope ('for this API key'). This clearly separates it from siblings like add_watch_pattern and list_watch_patterns, even though those alternatives are not explicitly named.
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 gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over add_watch_pattern or list_watch_patterns; it only states the operation and a prerequisite ('Requires an API key'). There are no exclusions, contexts, or alternative references.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have clearly distinct roles, and the descriptions explicitly separate product lookup from recall search. However, the multiple recall search entry points (by query, UPC, image, and identifier) overlap enough that an agent could pick the wrong one without carefully reading the details.
Tool names consistently follow a snake_case verb_noun pattern such as add_, list_, remove_, search_, get_, create_, revoke_, and mark_. The single-word signup is the only minor deviation, but it does not undermine the overall naming system.
At 19 tools, the set is in the borderline-heavy range. The count is justified by the multiple subdomains like API key management, inventory, watch patterns, notifications, and recall searching, but it still feels slightly above the ideal well-scoped tool surface.
Core recall search, product lookup, inventory tracking, watch pattern management, notifications, and API key lifecycle are all covered well. Minor gaps exist such as no way to update a watch pattern or view account usage limits, but agents can generally work around them.