redmine_issue_remove_watcher

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the destructive nature via the DELETE verb and the word 'remove', which implies mutation. However, it does not mention side effects, permission requirements, or error handling (e.g., what happens if the user is not a watcher). It is minimally transparent but not rich.

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?

The description is a single sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and includes the endpoint, making it efficient and well-structured. Every word earns its place.

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 simple delete operation with two parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but not comprehensive. It states the action and endpoint but omits details like consequences, required permissions, or error behavior. Given the simplicity, it is minimally sufficient but could be more informative about what happens on success or failure.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It indirectly explains parameters via the URL template '/issues/:issue_id/watchers/:user_id.json', which maps issue_id and user_id to their roles. However, it does not explicitly define them or state that user_id is the watcher to remove. The URL provides a hint, but the description adds limited explicit semantics beyond 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 clearly states the action: 'Remove a watcher from an issue'. It includes the specific REST endpoint with HTTP method, making the purpose unambiguous and distinct from siblings like add_watcher. The verb and resource are precise.

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 implies the usage context (removing a watcher) but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives or state when not to use it. It does not mention conditions like 'use add_watcher to add a watcher' or any prerequisites. The context is clear but no exclusions are provided.

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