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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: batch edits are bounded and partial failures must be reported per item rather than as a whole-batch success. Missing auth/rate-limit details, but the partial-failure contract is valuable.

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?

Front-loads the core action in the first sentence, then layers usage, exclusions, and behavioral notes. Five sentences, all informative, though a bit more compact phrasing could tighten it further without loss.

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?

Given an output schema exists, return values need not be explained. The description covers purpose, usage, alternatives, batch bounds, and partial-failure behavior. WorkspaceId semantics are full in the schema. Complete enough for a batch mutation tool, though it could mention idempotency or re-run implications.

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 50% (only workspaceId is documented). The operations parameter has no schema description, but its anyOf structure and mode constants are self-explanatory. The description's 'create person signal watches or change their active/paused state' maps to the two modes but adds little beyond what the schema already conveys. 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?

States a specific verb (create/change state) and resource (person signal watches), and explicitly contrasts with the deletion sibling tool. An agent can distinguish it from similar edit tools like campaignstack_edit_company_employee_watch without opening schemas.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use conditions ('user asks CampaignStack to watch a lead for profile changes or pause/resume an existing person watch') and a clear when-not with the named alternative ('does not delete watches; use campaignstack_delete_signal_watch for removal'). No inference required.

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