delete_watch

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the destructive nature: 'Immediate and permanent -- its delivery history is deleted with it.' It also adds context about cost ('Free') and ownership, providing significant value beyond what the schema offers.

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 extremely concise: two sentences and a short note on cost. It is front-loaded with the primary action, then a key caveat, then an alternative, and finally cost. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, destructive behavior, alternative, and ownership requirement. However, it does not mention what the response or return value is, or any edge cases like whether certain watches cannot be deleted. Still, it is largely complete for the scope.

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 description does not mention the `watch_id` parameter or explain how to identify the watch. The schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not compensate for this. The parameter name is somewhat self-explanatory given the tool name, but the description adds no additional semantic meaning, such as format, source, or behavior.

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: 'Delete a board watch you own.' It identifies the resource (board watch) and the specific operation (delete), and distinguishes it from alternative actions like temporary deactivation. This is a specific verb+resource combination that sets it apart from sibling tools.

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?

Explicitly provides when to use this tool versus an alternative: 'To temporarily stop notifications without losing the watch's config or history, use `PATCH /watches/{id}` with `isActive: false` instead.' It also notes the ownership prerequisite ('a board watch you own'), giving clear contextual usage guidance.

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