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

The description adds the authorization requirement 'watches:write' and explains idempotency behavior by instructing to repeat the same Idempotency-Key to safely replay a request. These details go beyond the annotations, which only flag idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. There is no contradiction with the annotations.

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 two sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the idempotency instruction is concise and actionable. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

This is a create operation with seven parameters and no output schema, but the description omits the meaning of most parameters, the response format, and the distinction from sibling tools. The short description is not enough for an agent to invoke this tool correctly without additional inference.

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 only 14%, so the description must compensate for parameters like name, mode, active, category, threshold, and eventClass. It only discusses the idempotency key, leaving the other six parameters without meaningful description. This is a significant gap for a 7-parameter tool.

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 clearly states the operation: 'Create a Founding Pro saved watch,' with a specific verb, resource, and plan qualifier. It is unambiguous about creating, not updating or listing, but it does not explicitly name sibling tools to differentiate from them, so it misses the top bar.

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 implies usage: call it when you need to create a new saved watch. It also gives a permission prerequisite ('Requires watches:write') and an idempotency replay instruction, but it does not discuss when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it, so it stops at implied usage.

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