watch_remove

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does disclose one meaningful behavior: that snapshot history remains in the git log after removal, which helps an agent understand this is not destructive to historical data. However, it doesn't disclose whether the operation is reversible (whether re-adding is needed), side effects on ongoing scans or diffs, or what happens to watch-list state. The partial disclosure earns a mid-range score but leaves gaps.

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 very concise — two short sentences with zero filler. It's front-loaded with the primary purpose and adds one valuable behavioral detail. Appropriately sized for a simple 1-parameter tool.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, this is on the lower end of adequate. The description covers the core action and one consequential behavior, but given the absence of all structured metadata, it should say more about the 'name' parameter format and the relationship to watch_add/watch_list to be fully complete for an agent deciding to invoke it.

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?

There is only one parameter (name) with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. The description implies 'name' refers to the identifier of the page to stop watching, but it doesn't specify the naming convention (URL, title, slug, internal ID) used by sibling watch tools. Since schema coverage is 0%, a brief note on what 'name' refers to would be valuable; its absence keeps this at baseline 3.

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 verb ('Stop watching a page') and the resource (a page being watched), making the core purpose evident. However, it doesn't differentiate from siblings like watch_add or watch_list, and the purpose of 'watching' itself is implied rather than explained. The description is clear enough to understand the action but lacks explicit scoping or distinction from closely related watch operations.

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 usage context (action on a page currently being watched, likely paired with watch_add), but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and doesn't name any alternative tools. Siblings like watch_list, watch_scan, and watch_diff exist, but the description offers no guidance on choosing among them. The stated behavior that snapshot history persists could be seen as a reassurance cue, weakly implying this tool is safe when history retention matters.

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