Test Watch

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations: test deliveries are intentionally not persisted, they never appear in list_watch_deliveries, they do not update the watch's last-notified timestamp, and there is a rate-limiting cooldown. This goes well beyond the bare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint values.

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?

Three sentences, each carrying distinct information: purpose, persistence behavior, and rate limiting. The main action is front-loaded, and there is no filler or 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?

For a simple one-parameter tool, the description covers purpose, non-persistence, timestamp behavior, and rate limiting. The only notable gap is the lack of any indication about the response format or how success/failure is reported, but the description gives enough context to understand the tool's role and side effects.

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 provides only a string-typed watch_id with no description and 0% coverage. The description connects this parameter to 'a watch's destination,' giving minimal semantic context. However, it does not explain the expected ID format, how to obtain a valid watch_id, or any constraints, so it only partially compensates for the missing schema documentation.

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 identifies the action ('send a synthetic notification'), the target resource ('a watch's destination'), and the intent ('verify signing, outbound auth and reachability'). It also differentiates from related tools like list_watch_deliveries by explicitly stating test deliveries are not persisted.

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 phrase 'before relying on it' gives clear timing and use-case context. It also clarifies the behavioral contrast with list_watch_deliveries by saying test deliveries never appear there. It lacks explicit exclusions or alternative tool guidance, but for a focused test operation this is sufficient.

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