rba_unwatch_file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only restates the action without disclosing what happens if the id is invalid, whether the operation is reversible, or what the return value indicates. The word 'active' adds a small constraint but no substantial behavioral context.

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 description is a single concise sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and immediately clear about the tool's action.

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?

The tool is simple, but with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter guidance, the description is incomplete. It does not address prerequisites (e.g., an active watcher), how to get the id, or expected results/errors.

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 input schema has one parameter 'id' with 0% coverage, and the description does not explain how to obtain or format the id. It is implied that 'id' identifies a watcher, but no guidance is given (e.g., 'use list_watchers').

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 'Stop one active RBA file watcher' uses a specific verb ('stop') and resource ('RBA file watcher') with a clear scope ('one active'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like rba_stop_all_watchers and rba_watch_file.

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 implies usage when you want to stop a specific watcher rather than all watchers, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives. It lacks exclusions or references to list_watchers for obtaining the id.

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