Pause a watch (free)

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well by disclosing a non-obvious side effect: 'The expiry clock keeps running.' It also signals non-destructiveness ('without deleting it') and the dead-man switch context. It falls short of mentioning reversibility or any required permissions.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action, and every word adds value. The use case and side effect are included without fluff.

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 core behavior is well covered, including scope, non-deletion, and expiry behavior. However, parameter semantics are missing, and there is no information about return values, errors, or whether the operation is reversible. The tool is simple, so a 3 reflects the gaps that remain.

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 description coverage is 0% and the tool description does not explain any parameters. 'watchId' is inferable but 'secret' is ambiguous and could be a password, token, or other value. The description adds no meaning beyond the bare parameter names.

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 clearly states the action ('Stop a watch firing') with a specific resource and scope (chain, web, heartbeat, schedule). It explicitly contrasts with deletion, distinguishing it from sibling tools like delete_watch.

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?

Provides a concrete use case ('Use before a planned agent shutdown so your dead-man switch does not cry wolf') and clarifies it does not delete the watch. However, it does not mention when not to use it or point to resume_watch as the opposite action.

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