live_watch_for

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does not disclose whether adding triggers replaces or appends to the existing set, whether removal of a nonexistent trigger errors, or whether changes persist after `live_stop`. "Change" signals mutation but the mechanics and reversibility are left entirely implicit.

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?

A single tight sentence with no filler, and the resource is front-loaded after the verb. It is efficient but so short that it omits necessary operational detail rather than being optimally dense.

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 needn't be explained, but for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage and 0% parameter documentation, the description leaves the add/remove semantics and session prerequisite unaddressed. It is not complete enough for an agent to invoke this confidently.

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% — `add` and `remove` are bare arrays of strings with no descriptions. The description never mentions these two parameters, so it fails to compensate: an agent cannot tell whether `add` is additive or a full replacement, or how strings are matched for `remove`.

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 ("Change") and resource ("visual triggers") and adds a clarifying parenthetical that these are descriptions of things to watch for. It scopes the change to the running session, which implicitly separates it from a persistent `watch` tool, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus `watch`, `list_watches`, or `live_start`. The phrase "running session" hints that a live session must already exist, but no prerequisite or exclusion is stated outright.

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