Delete Standing Intent

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

Annotations already mark this as destructive, so the description adds useful context beyond that: the watch cannot be recovered, deliveries stop, and a key is required. This gives the agent a clear picture of the irreversible side effects without contradicting the annotations.

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 compact and well-structured: core action first, then source of the ID, then applicable user intent, then a clear prohibition. Every sentence carries useful information and there is no clutter.

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 one-parameter destructive tool with a fully documented schema and annotations, the description is complete: it covers the effect, irreversibility, authorization requirement, ID provenance, and the main misuse case. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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?

The input schema already fully documents the single intent_id parameter, including noting that it comes from list_standing_intents or register. The description reinforces this but does not meaningfully add new parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Permanently retire a registered standing intent (webhook watch) by intent_id' and explicitly says it removes the watch. It also anchors the tool's purpose with 'Answers "stop watching this"', making the intent unmistakable and easy to distinguish from listing or registering intents.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool (when the user wants to stop watching something), how to obtain the required intent_id (from list_standing_intents or the register response), and when not to use it ('Do NOT use to pause temporarily; there is no pause, this removes the watch'). This provides clear decision rules.

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