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 real behavioral context beyond that: the effect is immediate and no further e-mail is sent, which tells the agent exactly what 'destructive' means here, plus the prerequisite of holding the intentCode.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the trigger condition, followed by the effect and the required input. Every clause carries information and nothing is repeated from the title.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the description covers trigger, effect, and required input for a one-parameter mutation. The only minor gap is whether the stoppage is reversible or requires re-publishing, which the agent must infer.

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 the single parameter is fully documented in the schema, including its 32-character pattern and origin from intent_publish_intent. The description only restates 'Requires the intentCode' and adds no format or lookup guidance, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 explicitly ties the tool to the sibling that created the intent, intent_publish_intent. An agent can distinguish this from intent_get_intent and 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?

Gives a clear trigger condition ('when the user wants LivinIsto to stop watching') and names the originating tool, so the agent knows this follows intent_publish_intent. It does not state any when-not conditions or a true alternative, but for a single-purpose unsubscribe tool the routing is unambiguous.

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