firestarter_unwatch

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds genuine value by spelling out the reversibility distinction—pause preserves history while delete does not—and explicitly flags the permanence of deletion. It's consistent with the annotations (no contradiction) and adds the historical-checks nuance that annotations can't express.

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?

Two crisp sentences, front-loaded with the core verb and resource, with the critical consequence (permanence) placed for emphasis. Every word earns its place; no verification or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 tool with only 2 required params, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description covers the essential lifecycle semantics well. The one minor gap: it never explains why 'resume' lives in an 'unwatch' tool or how resume relates to the watch flow, which could briefly confuse an agent, but nothing critical to invoking the tool is missing.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly, including the action enum with its own descriptions. The description adds context about pause/delete permanence but doesn't add a meaningful layer of param-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 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 uses a specific verb-resource pair ('Pause or delete a monitor') and clearly distinguishes two modes of operation. It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like firestarter_watch and firestarter_delete_ship_from, though it does not name them 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?

The description explains the consequence of each action ('Paused can be resumed later; deleted are permanent'), which implies when to choose pause over delete. However, it never points to an alternative tool or states when NOT to use this tool, and the 'resume' action is only implied by the second sentence rather than given explicit when-to-use guidance.

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