remove_watcher

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Remove a watcher from an issue' without mentioning permissions, side effects, failure conditions, or confirmation behavior. This is minimal and leaves important behavioral traits undisclosed.

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 clear sentence followed by a minimal Args list. Every piece of text earns its place, and the core purpose is front-loaded. There is no unnecessary verbosity.

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 simple tool with two integer parameters and an output schema, the description covers the essential action and parameter semantics. It does not elaborate on edge cases or behavioral specifics, but given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, it is reasonably complete.

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 0%, so the description's Args section is the only source of parameter meaning. It adds some clarity: 'issue_id: issue ID' is somewhat tautological, but 'user_id: ID of the user to remove' clarifies the role of the parameter beyond the schema's title. It provides partial compensation but not deep semantics.

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 opens with 'Remove a watcher from an issue,' which clearly identifies the action and the resource. This is specific and distinguishable from sibling tools like 'add_watcher'.

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 states what the tool does but gives no explicit guidance on when to use it or when to prefer alternatives. Usage is implied from the purpose, but there are no contextual cues or exclusions.

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