Watch Card

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the notification purpose, but says nothing about required permissions, whether watching is idempotent, whether the caller is watching on behalf of themselves or others, or what the operation returns. For a state-changing subscription 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?

A single compact sentence with no wasted words, and the core action is front-loaded. It is efficient, though the brevity is part of why behavioral context is thin.

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 two-parameter toggle tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description is barely sufficient. It leaves permission requirements and the relationship to watch_list unexplained, which an agent would need to route 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents both cardId and the subscribed boolean toggle. The description adds no syntax, format, or default details beyond that, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb pair and resource: subscribing/unsubscribing to watch a card. The 'for activity notifications' clause clarifies intent. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling watch_list, which follows the exact same pattern for a different resource.

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?

Usage is implied by 'for activity notifications' and by the boolean toggle, but there is no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to guidance and no mention of the watch_list alternative. An agent must infer that this tool is for cards specifically and watch_list for lists.

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