watch_update

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses in-place mutation, partial updates, deep-merge, re-baselining, and return value. Missing details on idempotency, rate limits, or permissions, but overall adequate for a mutation tool.

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, focused paragraph of four sentences. Every sentence adds value, no fluff, and the main purpose is front-loaded. Excellent structure.

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 11 parameters with nested objects and no output schema, the description covers core behaviors, parameter effects, and return type. Lacks mention of error handling or watch existence checks, but is adequate for a complex tool.

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 100%, baseline 3. The description adds value by explaining effects like url clearing baseline, deep-merge of renderParams, and nullifying channels. It goes beyond schema definitions with practical context.

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 begins with 'Update a watch in place' and lists specific actions (pause/resume, re-point url, change schedule/diff/notify, turn off channel), clearly stating the verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like watch_create and watch_delete.

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 explains partial updates ('Only the fields you send change') and deep-merge behavior for renderParams, as well as re-baselining on scope changes. However, it does not explicitly contrast with watch_create or watch_get for read workflows, nor state prerequisites like watch existence.

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