weeek_add_watchers

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the return value ('Returns the task; watchers are its `watchers` field'), which matters since there is no output schema, but says nothing about permissions, idempotency, duplicate handling, or what happens when a name cannot be resolved.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the operation and its purpose front-loaded before the return-value note.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description covers the essentials (what a watcher is, accepted identifier forms, return shape) but leaves gaps around the task `id` parameter, error behavior on unresolvable members, and permission requirements.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does add meaning for the `watchers` parameter by stating members may be given 'by name or id', which explains the string|number union, but the `id` parameter (implicitly the task id) is never explained, nor is the 50-item cap.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Add members ... as watchers of a WEEEK task') and clarifies the effect ('so they get its notifications'), which distinguishes watchers from assignees. It never names a sibling tool explicitly, but the operation is 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?

Usage is only implied by the purpose statement; there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no note on when this is preferable to weeek_add_assignees, and no exclusion or precondition (e.g. task must exist, member must belong to the workspace).

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