Unwatch Card

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the behavioral consequence ('You'll stop receiving updates about card changes'), which aligns with the annotations. It does not disclose reversibility or whether existing notifications remain, but the annotation bar is already met.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: action, effect, and use case. The core verb is front-loaded and there is zero wasted wording.

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 simple two-parameter state mutation with full schema coverage and annotations present, the description is nearly complete. Minor omissions like reversibility (re-watching) and effect on already-existing notifications do not block correct invocation.

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% with detailed parameter docs: card_number distinguishes itself from card_id and account_slug explains format and how to discover values. The tool description adds no paramater info, but the schema already carries the full burden, so baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb+resource ('Unsubscribe from notifications for a card') and the practical effect ('stop receiving updates about card changes'). It is clearly distinct from the inverse sibling fizzy_watch_card and from notification-reading tools, though it does not explicitly name any sibling to differentiate itself.

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 gives actionable usage context: 'Use this to reduce notification noise for cards you're no longer actively involved with.' It does not name alternatives or exclusions (e.g., when to use fizzy_mark_notification_read instead), but the stated condition for use is clear enough.

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