firestarter_watch

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

Annotations already indicate this is a write (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds the webhook notification behavior and the trigger conditions (price drops, restock, new listings), which is useful beyond annotations. However, it does not disclose side effects like persistence, whether the monitor can be modified, or any rate limits. The added context is helpful but not comprehensive.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary action and then explains the notification behaviors. Every phrase contributes meaning without redundancy, making it highly scannable and efficient for an agent reading it quickly.

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 six parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and notification triggers, but it omits details like the default schedule, how the 'goal' parameter differs from 'query', and the fact that monitors are persistent and can be listed/canceled via sibling tools. The schema fills some gaps, but the description could be more complete in orienting the agent about the overall monitor lifecycle.

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 all six parameters are already documented. The description does not add any explanation of how parameters relate to each other (e.g., goal vs. query) or provide usage nuances. Per the calibration, baseline 3 applies when the schema fully covers parameters and the description adds no extra value, which is the case here.

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 action (create), the resource (price/stock monitor), and the core behavior (watches products on a schedule, notifies via webhook). It is distinct from sibling tools like firestarter_watches (list) and firestarter_unwatch (remove), and the title reinforces this. The verb+resource combination is specific enough for an agent to understand it creates a new monitor.

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 implies when to use it (to set up a monitor) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or conditions for not using it. It relies on the agent inferring that creation is different from listing or removing monitors. There is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over other sibling tools, though the purpose is clear enough that a capable agent would make the right call.

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