Create Watch

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

Annotations indicate mutation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description explicitly states 'MUTATES' and explains idempotency via get-or-create by name. It also discloses daily evaluation, email digest integration, and requirement for SF_API_KEY, providing full behavioral context beyond 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?

The description is well-structured with clear segments, bullet points, and front-loaded purpose. While somewhat lengthy, the complexity of the tool (11 parameters, nested objects) justifies the length. Every sentence adds value, and the structure aids readability.

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 tool's complexity, the description covers purpose, behavior, prerequisites (API key), forms, idempotency, and references to sibling tools. The input schema has full parameter descriptions, and an output schema exists. No gaps remain for an agent to make informed decisions.

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 covers 100% of parameters with individual descriptions. The description adds significant value by explaining the relationship between criteria and single-selector seeds, detailing the collections relation (e.g., similar floor notes), and providing strategic usage hints. However, most parameter meaning is already in the schema, so the incremental value is moderate.

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 tool creates a standing watch that is evaluated daily and surfaces matches via email and check_watches. It specifies the verb ('create'), resource ('watch'), and scope ('standing watch evaluated daily'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like update_watch, delete_watch, and check_watches.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use the tool, including two forms (v2 structured vs legacy), recommending structured form, advising preview_watch before creation, and noting get-or-create behavior. It mentions alternatives like update_watch and preview_watch, but does not systematically list all when-not scenarios (e.g., if you only need to read, use list_watches). Still, it offers substantial contextual guidance.

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