gmail_watch_stop

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

The 'Audited' note adds real context beyond the annotations, which already declare non-readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior. However, it omits the practical behavior an agent would want: whether an active gmail_watch_start is a prerequisite, whether the stop is immediate, and whether re-starting afterward requires new credentials.

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 short clauses, purpose front-loaded, with the API method and audit note appended efficiently. The 'Audited.' fragment is terse but carries information rather than padding.

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 one-parameter, annotation-covered teardown tool this is close to sufficient, but it misses the relationship to gmail_watch_start (prerequisite/state) and says nothing about the optional reason parameter, which is the only input the agent can supply.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage on the single 'reason' parameter, and the description never mentions it, so an agent gets no semantic guidance from either source (only a default value and a 3-500 char length bound). With low coverage the description is expected to compensate and does not.

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 ('Stops Gmail push notifications') and anchors it to the underlying API method (users.stop), which leaves no ambiguity about what is being terminated. It is implicitly the inverse of the sibling gmail_watch_start, though that sibling is never named.

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?

Usage is only implied by the tool name paired with gmail_watch_start; the description never says when to call it (e.g. before decommissioning a watch, or to silence notifications during maintenance) or what happens if no watch is active. No alternatives or exclusions are given.

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