delete_watch

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses mutation, idempotency, and authentication requirement (SF_API_KEY). Could be improved by noting irreversibility or any side effects, but core behavioral traits are covered.

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?

Five concise sentences, each adding distinct value: action, mutation flag, idempotency, alternative, auth requirement. No fluff or repetition. Front-loaded with most important info.

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 no output schema, the description omits return value details, but for a delete tool that's often acceptable. Covers auth, idempotency, and alternative. Simple tool with 2 params is well-served. Minor gap: no explicit statement about response or 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for both parameters (name and watch_id) already stating exclusivity. Description repeats 'addressed by watch_id OR name' but adds no new meaning beyond schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Delete a watch' with specific verb and resource, and mentions addressing by watch_id or name. It distinguishes itself from update_watch by advising users to use update_watch for modifications instead of delete-and-recreate.

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?

Explicitly advises against using delete for modifications, directing to update_watch. It mentions idempotent behavior (no error on non-existent watch). However, it doesn't contrast with other siblings like create_watch or list_watches, but the primary alternative is covered.

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