delete_brand_audit_watch

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false), the description adds permanent deletion semantics, ownership scoping, the notFound response for other principals, and confirmation of deletion. This gives the agent a full picture of side effects and error behavior.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and every clause adds value—permanence, owner scoping, notFound behavior, and deletion confirmation. No fluff or repetition.

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 single-parameter tool with strong annotations and an output schema, the description covers the essential action, the permission/ownership model, the error case, and the return value. It is self-sufficient in context.

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% and the parameter description ('Watch ID returned by register_brand_audit_watch') is already helpful. The tool description additionally clarifies that the watchId must be owned by the caller, adding an ownership constraint that is not in the schema.

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 opens with 'Permanently removes a recurring brand-audit watch by watchId,' which is a specific verb (removes) and resource (recurring brand-audit watch). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like register_brand_audit_watch and list_brand_audit_watches.

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 clear context about when this tool applies (deleting a watch owned by the caller) and includes the owner-scoped caveat with notFound behavior. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is so distinct that usage is unambiguous.

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