firestarter_watch

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

Annotations only indicate the tool is not read-only and not destructive; the description adds valuable behavioral detail: it creates a persistent monitor, runs on a schedule, and triggers webhook notifications on specific product changes. This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent understand the tool's asynchronous, recurring nature.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no fluff. It efficiently communicates the primary function and key notification triggers.

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 creation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it creates, how it operates, and when notifications occur. It doesn't explain the return value or mention the 'goal' parameter for AI-powered detection, but the schema handles parameter details. The description is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 parameters are already documented. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it mentions webhook and schedule, which are already described in the schema). Baseline 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.

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 ('Create') and resource ('price/stock monitor') and clearly states the tool's function: watch products on a schedule and send webhook notifications for certain changes. This distinguishes it from siblings like firestarter_watches (listing monitors) and firestarter_unwatch (removing monitors).

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 clear context: use this when you want ongoing, scheduled monitoring of products and to be notified on price drops, restocks, or new listings. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the scheduling and 'create' wording imply persistent monitoring rather than a one-time check, giving enough guidance for selection.

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