firestarter_unwatch

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

The description adds useful context by stating that paused monitors can be resumed later and deleted monitors are permanent, complementing the annotations (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false). However, it does not mention the 'resume' action that the tool supports, nor does it discuss idempotency beyond what annotations imply. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose and the key distinction between pause and delete. It loses a point because it omits the 'resume' action, which is a small but notable gap, but overall it is concise and well-structured.

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?

The description covers the main purpose and consequences, and the schema/annotations fill in parameter details and safety profile. However, it is incomplete because it fails to mention the 'resume' action available in the schema, which means an agent reading only the description would not know the tool can also resume paused monitors. This gap reduces completeness.

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?

The input schema already provides complete descriptions for both parameters (monitor_id and action) with 100% coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool pauses or deletes a monitor, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like firestarter_watch (start watching) and firestarter_watches (list watches). However, it omits the 'resume' action that is available in the schema, so the purpose is not fully complete.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that firestarter_watch is for starting a watch or firestarter_watches for listing, nor does it state 'use this to pause/delete/resume a monitor'. The only hint is the action description, but that is in the schema, not the tool description.

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