watch_remove

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states that recorded incidents are left in place and that the supervising process continues to run until the operator stops it. This is meaningful non-obvious behavior. However, it does not mention potential error behaviors (e.g., if the container is not currently watched) or any required permissions.

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 with no filler. It front-loads the primary action ('Remove a target from the watch list') and then immediately adds the key behavioral nuance. Every word earns its place, and it is appropriately sized for a simple operation.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description does not explain the return value, but for a removal operation this is usually a confirmation. It also does not mention prerequisites like whether the container must already be watched, but the sibling tools and context make this inferable. The description covers the main behavior and side effects, which is adequate for its simplicity.

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 both parameters (server and container) are already described in the schema. The tool description adds no extra detail about parameter values, formats, or interplay. Since coverage is high, a baseline of 3 is appropriate and the description does not add value beyond the schema.

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 ('remove') and resource ('a target from the watch list'), and clarifies scope by noting recorded incidents are preserved. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like watch_add and watch_list by making the removal action unambiguous.

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 implicitly defines usage by contrasting with the add operation: it removes from the list without stopping supervision. It explains the side effect that the watcher keeps running, which is relevant when deciding whether to use this tool versus watch_stop or stopping the supervisor. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or give conditions like 'use when you need to stop watching a container but retain its history'.

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