update_watch

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does a solid job: it discloses that omitted fields are left unchanged, that pausing skips notifications but preserves history/config, and that webhookUrl/webhookSecret/emailAddress can be rotated but not cleared and are invalid on mismatched channels. It does not mention authentication requirements, return format, or error behavior, but the core side effects are transparent.

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 three substantive sentences plus a bold 'Free.' note. Each sentence addresses a distinct aspect: partial update semantics, pause/resume behavior, and endpoint-field rotation restrictions. It is dense but not verbose, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 6 parameters and no output schema, so the description should explain return values and error behavior; it does not. It does cover key behavioral details (partial update, pause semantics, channel-change alternative), but gaps remain regarding what response is returned, what happens on invalid input, and authentication/authorization requirements. These are significant for a mutation tool, so a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 83% (>80%), so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the semantic effect of isActive (pause/resume with skipped notifications but retained history/config) and by clarifying the rotate-but-not-clear rule for webhookUrl/emailAddress. It does not elaborate on webhookAuth, but the schema already provides extensive detail for that parameter.

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 'Partially update a watch you own,' which provides a specific action (update), resource (watch), and scope (partial). It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning fields like isActive, webhookUrl, and emailAddress, and by stating that to change channel one should delete and recreate the watch, clarifying the boundary with delete_watch and create_watch.

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 explicitly states when not to use this tool: 'To change channel itself, delete and recreate the watch.' It also implies usage for partial updates and provides clear guidance on pausing/resuming versus deletion. This is explicit when/when-not/alternatives guidance beyond what the sibling names alone convey.

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