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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation fact is not new. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations: the operation is idempotent, a missing watch produces no error, and SF_API_KEY is required. These details meaningfully inform an agent's expectations about side effects and failure modes.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded: the core action comes first, followed by the idempotency caveat, the update_watch alternative, and the auth requirement. Every sentence earns its place, with no filler 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 two-parameter delete tool with an output schema and destructive annotations, the description is highly complete. It covers the core action, idempotency, the alternative tool for in-place changes, and auth. The only minor gap is the lack of explicit precedence or conflict behavior when both name and watch_id are provided, but that is a small omission given the schema already marks them as alternatives.

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 input schema already documents both params with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the 'watch_id OR name' relationship, which is useful, but it does not add extra semantics such as what happens if both are supplied or whether one takes precedence. The schema descriptions already carry most of the parameter meaning.

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 states the exact operation: 'Delete a watch' and identifies how the resource is addressed (by watch_id OR name). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from update_watch, so an agent can tell this delete tool apart from other watch-related siblings 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?

The description gives clear when-to-use guidance and names the alternative: 'To change a watch in place ... use update_watch instead of delete-and-recreate.' It also clarifies an important edge case: deleting a non-existent watch is a no-op, which prevents the agent from treating missing IDs as errors.

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