weeek_remove_watchers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Remove watchers' implies a mutating operation, but there's no statement about whether the task must exist, what happens with invalid watcher IDs, error behavior for unknown watchers, or whether the operation is idempotent.

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?

A single efficient sentence with zero waste. It's appropriately minimal, though the brevity comes at the cost of the missing explanatory content noted in other dimensions.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, this description is thin for a mutating tool. It doesn't address failure modes, idempotency, required permission/authentication context, or relation to the sibling set_watchers tool. The watchers array format ambiguity is a significant gap for a tool that needs correct inputs to avoid errors.

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%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented parameters. It doesn't explain what format watchers should take (member IDs, emails, usernames), nor does it clarify what type the task_id values are beyond the schema's integer type. The 'watchers' array semantics (strings — are these emails or user IDs?) are entirely unclear.

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 states a specific verb+resource ('Remove watchers from a task'), which clearly identifies the action. However, it doesn't distinguish itself from the sibling tool weeek_set_watchers, leaving ambiguity about how these differ in their watcher-manipulation semantics.

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 provided about when to use this tool versus the closely related weeek_set_watchers or weeek_remove_assignees. The description gives no context on when removal is appropriate, prerequisites, or exclusion criteria.

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