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

Beyond annotations, it discloses that stopping is free, irreversible, stops webhooks, is idempotent, and requires credentials returned by create_watch. These details add meaningful behavioral context for a destructive mutation.

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, starting with the cost and core action before consequences and requirements. Every sentence contributes useful information without 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?

The tool has no output schema, and the description explains the return value as watch_id with status stopped. Annotations cover the safety profile, and the description completes the lifecycle and credential context.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces that watch_id and secret come from create_watch, but it adds little beyond the schema's own parameter descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: it ends a watch created by create_watch. It clearly distinguishes stopping from creating and checking a watch, and the 24-hour lifecycle context is explicit.

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?

It clearly describes when to use the tool: to end a watch before its 24-hour lifetime expires and stop further checks and webhooks. It also explains idempotent behavior, but it does not explicitly name watch_status or other alternatives.

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