Remove watcher

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

The description goes well beyond annotations by explaining that the watch is a link, that no issue content changes, that nothing is deleted, and that removing a non-watcher is a no-op. This aligns with and enriches the idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false annotations without contradicting them. It also discloses permission nuances not available in the schema.

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?

Four sentences, each carrying distinct value: core behavior, non-destructive nature, permission requirements, and idempotency. The most important fact is front-loaded, and there is no repetition of schema or annotation data.

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 write-mode tool with full schema descriptions, the description covers the behavioral and permission context an agent needs: effect, reversibility, idempotency, and authorization. The apply/plan_id/protocol mechanics are fully documented in the schema, and no output schema exists that would require return-value explanation. Nothing essential is missing.

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 100%, so parameters are already fully documented. The description adds minimal parameter-specific value beyond behavioral context, such as referencing accountId when mentioning jira_add_watcher. This meets the baseline for full schema coverage but does not go further to explain parameter interaction, defaults, or format nuances.

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?

Starts with a precise verb+object+resource: "Stops an account watching an issue," immediately distinguishing it from sibling jira_add_watcher and jira_list_watchers. The description is explicit about what the tool does and what it does not do, leaving no ambiguity about its role among the Jira watcher tools.

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?

Provides explicit context for when removal is permitted: removing someone else requires the "Manage watchers" permission, while removing yourself does not. It also names jira_add_watcher as the counterpart that reinstates the watch, which orients the agent within the sibling set, though it does not formally enumerate alternatives or exclusions.

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