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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the effect is immediate and no further e-mails are sent for the intent. It stops short of clarifying whether the intent record itself is deleted or only the watch is withdrawn — relevant given the destructiveHint.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the usage trigger and followed by effect and required input. Nothing is padded, though the trailing 'Requires the intentCode' sentence largely duplicates schema information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the single parameter is fully covered in the schema. The description supplies the trigger, the effect, and the required input, leaving only the delete-vs-unwatch distinction unspecified.

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 100%, so the intentCode parameter (pattern, origin) is fully documented in the schema. The description only restates 'Requires the intentCode' with no added format or sourcing detail beyond the sibling reference. Baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('stop watching for an intent') and ties it to the originating sibling intent_publish_intent. An agent can distinguish this reverse operation from intent_get_intent / intent_list_matches without opening any schema.

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?

'Use this when the user wants AutoIsto to stop watching for an intent created with intent_publish_intent' gives an explicit trigger condition and anchors it to the sibling that creates the watch. No when-not guidance is given, but the pairing with intent_publish_intent is unambiguous.

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