delete_watch

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it sometimes delivers: it discloses the real side effect that seen IDs are removed while global deduplication and queued deliveries survive, which is behavior an agent could not infer from the schema. However, it never states whether the deletion is irreversible, what permissions are required, or what happens if the watch_id is unknown.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler, split cleanly between what is destroyed and what is preserved. It is arguably too terse for a destructive tool, but every word earns its place.

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?

For an irreversible mutation with no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented required parameter, the description is thin. It omits irreversibility, error semantics, and any hint about prerequisites such as locating the watch_id via list_watches.

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%, so the description needs to compensate, but it says nothing about watch_id — not its origin, how to obtain it (e.g., from list_watches), or whether the watch must be paused first. Only the schema's integer type and minimum 1 constrain the argument.

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 states a specific verb and resource ("Delete a watch") and names what is removed alongside it ("its seen IDs"), which distinguishes it from siblings like pause_watch or update_watch. It stops short of explicitly naming those alternatives, so it does not reach the top of the scale.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance at all, even though pause_watch is an obvious softer alternative that an agent might prefer. The agent must infer the delete-versus-pause decision entirely from sibling names.

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