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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, yet the description goes well beyond them: an in-flight check may still complete and burn a credit, pending alerts are cancelled, and accounting records persist. That is exactly the 'what gets destroyed / what survives' context an agent needs before calling a destructive tool.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the consequences. No filler, no restatement of the tool name, and each sentence adds a distinct fact.

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 no explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile. The side-effect disclosure is thorough; the only real gap is the confirm parameter's default/semantics, which matters for a deletion gate.

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 0% across three parameters, so the description carries the full burden. It hints at the confirm gate ('after confirmation') but never explains that confirm defaults to false and must be set true, nor what api_key or watch_id require — the two undocumented parameters are left entirely to the agent.

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+resource pair ('Stop and delete your watch'), which cleanly separates it from create_diagnostic_watch, update_diagnostic_watch, and read_diagnostic_watches. It does not name those siblings explicitly, but the verb alone makes the routing unambiguous.

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?

'After confirmation' implies the confirm gate and the surrounding sentences describe what happens on invocation, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not guidance and no mention of alternatives such as update_diagnostic_watch for pausing without deleting. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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