manage_service_watchdog

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

The description provides no behavioral detail beyond the action verbs. It does not mention the confirmation safety gate for delete operations, the difference between create and delete parameters, or the apply_immediately behavior. Annotations claim destructiveHint: false, but the tool's delete operation is destructive, creating a contradiction.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant wording. It is appropriately concise for a tool with a rich schema, though it could benefit from a brief usage hint.

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 fairly complex with two distinct operations (create/delete) and a safety gate parameter. The description is very sparse, relying entirely on the schema for details such as the confirm requirement and watchdog_id vs name. Given the presence of an output schema and 100% parameter coverage, it is minimally complete but lacks operational context that would help an agent select it confidently.

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 description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the input schema. The schema provides full descriptions for all six parameters, including the required confirm flag for deletions. The description's high-level wording does not enhance the parameter semantics.

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 'Add or remove a service watchdog entry' clearly states the tool's function with specific verbs (add/remove) and resource (service watchdog entry). It distinguishes from sibling tools like search_service_watchdogs, which is read-only, while this is a mutation tool. This is a clear, non-tautological purpose.

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 for creating and deleting watchdog entries but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, or a direct reference to search_service_watchdogs for listing. However, the action parameter clarifies the two operation modes, providing some implied guidance.

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