stop_watching

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It names the action but does not disclose side effects, idempotency, error behavior if no watch is active, or whether any associated state is removed.

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 a single sentence with no filler. The core verb and object are front-loaded, and every word contributes to the meaning.

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 state-changing tool with no annotations, the description omits important operational context: when to call it, what path should reference, what happens if nothing is being watched, and what the expected effect is. The one-parameter schema is simple, but the description still does not make the tool confidently callable.

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 0% and the description does not explain the 'path' parameter at all. The agent is left to infer that 'a codebase' refers to the path, but the description adds no meaning beyond the schema's bare 'Path' label.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Stop watching a codebase for file changes.' This is unambiguous and effectively distinguishes the tool from the indexing/search siblings by operation type, though it does not explicitly compare itself to any sibling.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when an active watch exists or whether this should be called before re-indexing. The intended use is implied by the operation name, but not explained.

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