boss_watch_remove

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the deletion action and availability metadata, with no mention of whether deletion is irreversible, whether running watches are affected, or what happens if the named monitor does not exist.

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 core phrase is short and front-loaded, but the description contains a duplicated '可用性: 可用性:' label and a cryptic availability bracket that adds noise. It is concise but not polished or structured enough for a higher score.

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 delete tool, the minimal requirements are present: the action and the required name parameter are both clear. However, with no output schema, no annotations, and no behavioral or usage context, the agent lacks information about outcomes, idempotency, and failure behavior. It is adequate but has clear gaps.

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 single parameter name is fully documented in the schema as 监控名称, and schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description's 指定监控 simply reinforces the name parameter without adding constraints, formatting, or examples.

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 the action explicitly with the verb 删除 (delete), the resource 监控 (watch), and the scope 指定 (by name), which matches the tool name boss_watch_remove. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like boss_watch_add, boss_watch_list, and boss_watch_run.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as boss_watch_add or boss_watch_list. The bracketed availability block only lists roles and platforms; it does not describe preconditions, exclusions, or when deletion is appropriate.

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