Manage issue watchers

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

The description explicitly states 'Nothing is destroyed: removing a watcher only stops notifications and is reversed by adding them back.' It also warns about the separate 'Manage watchers' permission and clarifies that a permission error does not mean missing ids. This adds critical context beyond the annotations (idempotentHint, 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?

The description is a single paragraph but is well-structured: purpose first, then parameter usage, then behavior, then a note. It is concise but dense with information; slight restructuring could improve readability, but it earns its sentences.

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?

Given that there is no output schema, the description covers the action and error case (permission) well. It does not describe the response format, but for a mutation tool this is acceptable. It is nearly complete for the tool's complexity.

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 description adds practical guidance: for user_id it tells how to resolve names, for action it explains the effect of each value, and it notes that group ids are not accepted. This goes beyond the schema's minimal parameter descriptions.

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 begins with 'Add or remove a watcher on an existing issue — the notification subscription', clearly stating the verb and resource. Examples like 'watch this bug for me' differentiate it from sibling tools that manage issues, relations, or users.

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 explains how to obtain user IDs (from redmine_list_users or redmine_get_current_user) and how to read current watchers (redmine_get_issue with include: ['watchers']). It does not explicitly state when not to use, but the context implies when alternatives are appropriate.

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