namesniper_unwatch

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return format ('Returns JSON with the removed count and ids'), the auth requirement ('Requires an API key'), and the behavior of removing all watches for a username unless platform is given. It lacks error-condition details or idempotency info, but the essential behavioral traits are covered.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose. Each sentence adds valuable information: what it does, how to invoke it, and what it returns. There is no fluff or repetition of schema details that are already visible.

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 4 optional parameters, no required params, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is quite complete. It explains both usage modes, the return value, and the auth requirement. It could mention edge cases like passing both id and username, but that's not necessary for basic invocation; the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to use 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?

The schema already documents all 4 parameters with 100% coverage, so baseline is 3. The description adds semantic meaning by explaining the relationship between id and username as alternative removal modes, and that platform narrows username-based removal to one platform. This goes beyond individual parameter descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb phrase 'Stop monitoring a watched handle and free its slot,' which clearly states the tool's action and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like namesniper_watch (adds a watch) and namesniper_watches (lists watches) by focusing on removal. The two input modes (watch id or username) are also stated clearly.

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 tells users exactly how to invoke the tool: pass a watch id from namesniper_watches, or a username optionally narrowed by platform to remove all its watches. It implies when to use it (when you want to stop monitoring) and distinguishes from the add/list siblings by context. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the usage context is clear.

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