stop_watching_competitor

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the bar is lower, yet the description adds substantive context: stopping is permanent, billing/scheduled runs cease, permission is restricted to the monitor creator, and past changes survive and remain readable. That delimits exactly what is destroyed versus preserved, which annotations alone cannot convey.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and effect, then the permission and permanence constraints, then the arg block. Every sentence carries distinct information; the provider tag is trivial overhead.

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 destructive control tool with no output schema, the description covers everything needed: what it does, who may call it, irreversibility, downstream billing effect, what data persists, and where monitor_id comes from.

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 single parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does by identifying the parameter's provenance — an ID obtained from watch_competitor() or list_competitor_monitors() — which tells the agent where to source the value, though it omits format or example values.

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 (stop) and resource (competitor monitor) plus the operational effect: 'Halts scheduled runs and their charges.' It distinguishes itself from watch_competitor (start), list_competitor_monitors, and get_competitor_changes (history remains readable), so an agent can route without opening sibling schemas.

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?

Gives a clear precondition ('Only the user who created the monitor can stop it') and routes history-reading to a named alternative (get_competitor_changes). It stops short of an explicit when-not-to-use statement — e.g., pausing vs. permanently stopping — but the context for calling it is unambiguous.

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