Update Watch

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

Annotations already indicate a non-read-only, non-destructive operation, and the description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: pausing via isActive preserves config and history. It also discloses the channel-immutability constraint. No contradiction with annotations.

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 short sentences, each earning its place: the first states the core action, the second explains the pause behavior, and the third states a key limitation. Information 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 7-parameter mutation tool, the description gives a solid overview but omits the scope field, which is a significant modifiable watch property according to the schema. Since there is no output schema and the description is the main selection signal, this omission leaves an identifiable gap, even though the rich param schema partially compensates.

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 high (86%), so the schema already carries most parameter meaning. The description adds mild semantic grouping ('destination, signing secret, outbound auth, or active state') but does not clarify parameter behaviors beyond schema. It also silently omits the scope parameter, which the schema documents in detail.

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 uses a specific verb ('Change') and a clear resource ('a watch'), and lists the main modifiable aspects: destination, signing secret, outbound auth, and active state. It also adds a useful limitation ('The channel itself cannot be changed'). However, it omits 'scope' as a modifiable field, so the enumeration is not fully exhaustive.

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 implies use when modifying watch settings and gives a concrete use case: 'Set isActive false to pause notifications while keeping the watch's config and history.' It also states an exclusion ('The channel itself cannot be changed'). However, it never names alternatives like create_watch, delete_watch, or test_watch, nor does it explicitly say when not to use this tool.

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