register_brand_audit_watch

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint false, openWorldHint true), the description adds meaningful behavioral details: each run enqueues brand_audit_batch_start, optionally POSTs a webhook on drift, and enforces a per-principal cap of 20 watches. These side effects and constraints are not captured elsewhere. No contradictions with 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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the action, and every sentence adds value: creation, side effects, return value, and constraints. No fluff or redundancy.

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 tool's complexity (recurring scheduling, side effects, webhook, quota), the description covers the key aspects: what it does, what happens on each run, the webhook condition, ownership, and cap. An output schema exists, so return details are covered. Minor missing info like error conditions (e.g., conflict if domain already watched) but overall adequate.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add significant new semantics beyond the schema: it mentions the webhook behavior (already in schema) and ownership, which is more about tool behavior than parameter specific meaning. No extra value for parameters.

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 a specific verb ('Creates') and resource ('recurring brand-audit watch') and clearly differentiates from siblings like list_brand_audit_watches and delete_brand_audit_watch. It also mentions the cadence options (daily/weekly/monthly) and side effects, making the tool's function unmistakable.

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 implicitly distinguishes this from one-off audits by emphasizing 'recurring' and 'cadence.' It also mentions owner-scoping and a cap of 20 watches, providing constraints. However, it does not explicitly point to alternatives (e.g., brand_audit_single) or state when NOT to use this tool, so a small gap exists.

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