weeek_set_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. It mentions 'Add' which implies mutation, but doesn't disclose whether adding is additive (appends) or replaces existing watchers, whether duplicates are handled, permissions required, or what happens on invalid member ids. For a mutation tool this is a meaningful gap.

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 efficient sentence with zero filler. It packs the core purpose and a cross-tool reference into minimal words.

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 2-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, this description is thin. It doesn't explain behavioral semantics (append vs replace), error handling, return value, or required permissions. The watchers source reference helps but doesn't compensate for the missing behavioral and completeness detail.

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 only explains where watcher ids come from (weeek_list_members). It adds nothing about what task_id means or the format/semantics of the watchers array items beyond what the schema already implies (string items). The description partially compensates for the lack of schema detail on the watchers param but leaves task_id undocumented.

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 verb (Add) and resource (watchers/subscribers to a task). It also references the source of member ids (weeek_list_members), adding useful context. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from the sibling weeek_remove_watchers, though the contrasting verb is implied in the name.

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 context on where member ids come from (weeek_list_members), which hints at usage prerequisites. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like weeek_remove_watchers or weeek_set_assignees, and gives no exclusion guidance.

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