delete_brand_audit_watch

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

Annotations already indicate destructive and non-readOnly, but the description adds critical context: 'Permanently removes' (irreversibility), owner-scoping (authorization boundaries), and error behavior (notFound for unauthorized IDs). This fully details consequences beyond annotations.

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, each adding essential information: the purpose and a critical behavioral caveat. No wasted words, front-loaded with action.

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 a single parameter, full schema coverage, and presence of output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: action, authorization, error case, and result confirmation. No gaps.

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 includes a clear description for watchId. The tool description adds only minor nuance (owner-scoping) beyond the schema's 'Watch ID returned by register_brand_audit_watch'. Baseline 3 applies as schema already does the heavy lifting.

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 uses specific verb 'removes' and resource 'recurring brand-audit watch', clearly identifying the action and scope. It distinguishes from siblings like list_brand_audit_watches and register_brand_audit_watch by stating permanence and owner-scoping.

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 explicitly states owner-scoping behavior ('watchId owned by another principal surfaces as notFound'), providing clear context for when to use. While not explicitly contrasting with sibling tools, the purpose is enough to guide selective use.

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