Unwatch project

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so safety framing is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact — no notifications are sent to others ('Nobody else is told'). It does not say what happens if the project is not on the watchlist (error vs no-op), which matters given idempotentHint=false.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the one piece of behavioral context an agent can't get from structured fields. No padding.

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 single-parameter, non-idempotent mutation with no output schema, the definition covers what is removed and who is affected. The only real gap is failure behavior when the project is not currently watched.

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% and the schema already explains that project_id comes from list_watchlist or the project URL. The description adds nothing further about the parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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+resource ('Take a project off this account's watchlist') and immediately narrows scope to the signed-in account's watchlist. The counterpart sibling watch_project is obvious from the verb pairing, though it is never named explicitly.

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 the account-scoped phrasing, and the pointer in the schema to list_watchlist gives a source for the ID. However, there is no explicit 'use this instead of X' guidance and no stated precondition (e.g., project must currently be watched).

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