create_watch

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently mentions two significant behaviors: SSRF blocklist validation for webhookUrl at acceptance and dispatch, and the stable deliveryId for deduplication across retries. This provides useful insight beyond what a simple 'create' verb would imply.

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 remarkably concise: two sentences and a 'Free.' note. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every sentence adds specific, non-redundant information. There is no fluff or repetition of schema content.

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?

The tool has 7 parameters, 1 required, no output schema, and no annotations, so the description must cover a lot. It covers key behavioral facets (SSRF, dedup) but omits what response to expect, possible error conditions, and prerequisites for email/webhook channel selection. Given the complexity, a bit more operational detail would improve completeness, but the description is not grossly inadequate.

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 86%, so the input schema already provides rich detail for most parameters. The main description adds value by clarifying webhookUrl's SSRF validation and the deliveryId behavior, but it does not fundamentally expand on parameter meanings beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with 'Subscribe to a board', which is a specific verb+resource pairing that clearly identifies the action. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like delete_watch, list_watches, update_watch, and test_watch by using a unique action verb ('subscribe') and naming the target resource.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_watch or test_watch. It does provide some operational context (SSRF validation, deliveryId dedup) but lacks explicit usage guidance or exclusions, leaving the reader to infer appropriate use from the tool name alone.

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