watch_stop

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

Annotations only communicate that the operation is not read-only and not idempotent. The description adds specific behavioral detail beyond those flags: it stops the duty and moves unfinished deliveries back to their profiles. This is consistent with the annotations and gives the agent a concrete expectation of side effects.

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 that front-loads the primary action and immediately states the resulting behavior. It contains no filler, no repetition of the tool name, and no redundant schema information.

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 low-complexity tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description conveys the core semantics: what action is performed and what happens to unfinished deliveries. It omits minor details like how to obtain the duty_id or what happens after stopping, but the simplicity of the tool makes this acceptable.

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 mention the duty_id parameter at all. The parameter name is self-descriptive, but the description provides no additional information about where duty_id comes from, its format, or how it relates to the stated behavior.

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 starts with a specific verb, 'stop,' identifies the resource as 'this duty,' and adds the concrete consequence of returning unfinished deliveries to their profiles. This clearly distinguishes it from the other watch_* sibling tools, none of which describe stopping.

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 phrase 'this duty' implies an active duty exists and that this tool ends it, which is useful context. However, the description does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives like watch_start, watch_ack, or watch_status, so the usage context must be inferred.

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