Parar de monitorar

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 only states the action (ending a watch) without explaining side effects, idempotency, error behavior if the watch does not exist, or any return value. This is insufficient for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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, direct sentence with no superfluous words. The information is front-loaded and the structure is optimal for such 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 the absence of annotations, output schema, and any parameter descriptions, the tool definition is incomplete. It does not explain what happens after stopping a watch, whether it returns a result, or any constraints (e.g., watch must be active). An agent cannot fully anticipate the tool's behavior from this description alone.

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 schema provides only the type and requirement for watch_id, with zero description coverage. The description adds that the watch is ended 'pelo watch_id', clarifying that the parameter is the identifier of the watch to stop. However, it does not provide format, examples, or validation details, so it only partially compensates for the schema gap.

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 clearly states the verb 'Encerra' (ends) and the resource 'watch', with the mechanism 'pelo watch_id'. It is unambiguous and distinct from siblings like watch_start and watch_poll, making the tool's purpose immediately obvious.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as requiring an active watch, or any relationship to watch_start or watch_poll. An agent is left to infer usage from the name alone.

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