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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the core action (registering a watched channel) but does not disclose side effects, authentication requirements, idempotency, error behavior, or whether it overwrites existing entries. For a write operation with no annotation safety hints, this is a significant gap.

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 a single, efficient sentence with no fluff. The core action is front-loaded, and there is zero wasted 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 1-parameter tool, the description states the purpose clearly, but it does not mention return values, error handling, or idempotency. Since there is no output schema and no annotations, an agent is left guessing about outcomes beyond the basic effect.

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 schema covers the single parameter channel_id with an example ('Globo.br'). The description adds no additional semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 for full schema coverage applies.

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 a specific verb ('Registra' = registers), a specific resource ('canal assistido' = watched channel), and a destination ('histórico do dono' = owner's history). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_history, clear_history, and forget_watch, which read or clear history.

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 purpose implies usage (when you want to record a watched channel), but the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. No guidance is given on how this differs from add_favorite or other recording tools.

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