unwatch_game_state

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does not meet it. It does not say whether the call is idempotent, whether it errors when no watch is active, whether it only affects the calling session or all subscribers, or whether the stop takes effect immediately. It essentially restates the tool name with slightly more detail about what is being stopped.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word earns its place and the action is stated immediately.

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 zero-parameter toggle with no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient to invoke correctly. However, it omits the relationship to watch_game_state, error/idempotency behavior, and scope of effect, which are the only remaining things an agent would need for this operation.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. Nothing in the description is needed to explain parameter usage, and there is no ambiguity about what inputs to supply.

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 action (stop receiving) on a specific resource (real-time game state update notifications), so the inverse relationship with the sibling watch_game_state is obvious. It does not explicitly name that sibling, but the verb and object are unambiguous enough that no agent would confuse it with send_input, run_lua, or get_screenshot.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of the required counterpart call (watch_game_state) that presumably must precede it, and no statement about what happens if invoked without an active watch. Usage is only weakly implied by the phrase 'stop receiving'.

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