Update an existing Subito monitoring watch by replacing its search query or changing its name and check interval. Use it to retarget alerts while keeping queued notifications.
Replace the entire query, or change interval/name. Filter changes reset a silent baseline.
Existing queued notifications are retained. No price-drop or time filter support.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | ||
| query | No | ||
| watch_id | Yes | ||
| interval_seconds | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden and does add real behavioral context: filter changes reset a silent baseline, queued notifications survive the update, and unsupported filter types are called out. It still omits error behavior for an invalid watch_id, whether a name/interval-only change also touches the baseline, and what the call returns.
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?
Four short sentences, front-loaded with the mutation semantics, no filler. The phrase 'silent baseline' is slightly jargon-y but is the key operational detail and is placed early rather than buried.
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 a no-annotation, no-output-schema mutation tool with an undocumented nested Query object, the description covers the important side effects but leaves interval units, watch_id validity handling, and response shape unaddressed. Adequate, not complete.
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 must compensate; it correctly conveys that query is a whole-object replacement (not a merge), which is genuinely non-obvious from the schema. But watch_id is never mentioned, and interval_seconds is left without units or the 60–604800 bounds, so the compensation is partial.
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 names the three mutable facets (query, interval, name) and makes clear the query is fully replaced rather than patched, which distinguishes it from create_watch. It never states plainly that this modifies an existing watch identified by watch_id, but the verb 'replace' plus the sibling set makes the intent 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?
It implicitly steers the agent toward create_watch for new watches and away from this tool for price-drop or time-filter needs by declaring those filters unsupported. However, it never names an alternative tool or states a when-not condition (e.g., use pause_watch to suspend rather than editing), so the routing guidance is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.