weeek_remove_watchers

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the mutation profile is known. The description adds useful facts absent from structured data — the return shape ('Returns the task') and the confirm gate — but omits failure/partial-success behavior and what happens when a listed watcher isn't actually watching.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the action stated first and the hard precondition second. Every clause earns its place.

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 3-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the action, the confirm requirement, the watcher identifier flexibility, and the return value. The only remaining gap is the unexplained 'id' parameter and edge-case behavior when a watcher isn't present.

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 coverage is only 33%, so the description must compensate. It does add real meaning for 'watchers' (accepted as a name OR an id, which the bare array-of-string|number schema does not convey) and reiterates the confirm gate, but leaves the task 'id' parameter unexplained.

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 and resource ('Stop members ... watching a WEEEK task'), which is precisely the inverse of the sibling weeek_add_watchers. An agent can pick it without opening the schema.

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?

It discloses a hard precondition ('Requires confirm:true'), which is a real gating rule, but gives no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions (e.g. what if the member isn't watching), and never names the add/remove alternative explicitly.

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