Events of a watch

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the cancellation risk is signaled structurally. The description usefully adds cost ('Free') and durability context (events retained even when the webhook was down), which the annotations cannot convey, but it omits auth requirements and whether cancellation is reversible or permanent.

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 tight sentence with the cost note front-loaded and the mode switch highlighted. Efficient, though packing two distinct behaviors into one clause risks being read too quickly.

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?

With no output schema, no parameter descriptions, and a destructive cancel mode, the description does far too little: it never says what the returned events look like, how authentication is supplied, or what happens after cancellation.

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 0% and three required parameters (ecosystem, watchId, accessToken) are completely undocumented in both schema and description. Only the cancel flag gets semantic explanation, which is genuinely additive but leaves most parameters ambiguous.

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?

States a specific verb+resource pair: listing what a watch has seen, plus a second mode that cancels the watch. The dual list/cancel nature is clear and implicitly differs from the watch_create sibling, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 usage (call it to inspect a watch's event history; pass cancel:true to cancel), but gives no conditions for when to prefer this over watch_create or watchdog_wallet, and no prerequisites. Implied rather than explicit guidance.

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