Deletes a named watch subscription and its local monitoring progress, including positions and unacknowledged batches, without changing Telegram or archive copies.
Explicitly delete a subscription, positions and any unacknowledged batch.
This discards local monitoring progress. Telegram and permanent archive copies are unchanged. Recreating a watch starts a new coverage interval.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds real substance beyond them: what is destroyed (subscription, positions, unacknowledged batch), what survives (Telegram and permanent archive copies), and the recovery consequence (a recreated watch starts fresh coverage). This is exactly the kind of blast-radius disclosure a destructive tool needs.
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?
Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action and its blast radius before the caveats. No filler, and the what-is-destroyed information comes first where an agent will read it.
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 full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description covers the essential unknowns: persistence of data, recoverability, and scope of deletion. The only shortfall is how to obtain a valid watch name and whether the deleted watch can be restored from anywhere but the archive.
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?
There is one required 'name' parameter with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it — no guidance on where the name comes from (list_watches output), matching rules, or case sensitivity. With only a single self-evident parameter the gap is survivable, but the description adds no meaning over the schema.
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 and resource ('Explicitly delete a subscription, positions and any unacknowledged batch') and even enumerates the sub-objects removed. This clearly separates it from create_watch, list_watches, and ack_watch_changes without needing to open the schema.
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 phrase 'Explicitly delete' plus the note that 'Recreating a watch starts a new coverage interval' implies this is the terminal teardown action, and hints at create_watch as the re-entry path. However, no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement or named alternative (e.g. how to locate a valid name via list_watches) is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.