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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true, covering mutation and repeated-call safety. The description adds background context about watches being previously unremovable but does not disclose additional behavior such as what happens on missing ids or whether both parameters can be supplied.

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 only three short sentences, with the purpose front-loaded, parameter guidance second, and historical context last. Every sentence adds value and there is no redundant wording.

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 delete operation with idempotent annotation and a fully documented schema, the description covers identification of the target and the source workflow. It does not explain behavior when both or neither parameter is supplied, but that is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.

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% and both parameters already have descriptive schema text. The description largely restates the schema by saying 'Pass its id (from list_watches) or the exact query text,' so it adds little meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 opens with the specific verb and resource, 'Remove a watch,' and the title 'Stop tracking a query' reinforces the action. Mentioning the id comes from list_watches distinguishes this from sibling tools like watch_query or check_watch without ambiguity.

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 clearly states how to invoke the tool: either with an id from list_watches or with exact query text. It provides workflow context but does not explicitly list when-not-to-use or name alternative tools, so it stops short of a full when/when-not explanation.

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