taiga_tasks_unwatch

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the core action 'Stop watching a task' and does not mention side effects, idempotency, permissions, or what happens if the user is not watching the task. The behavior is essentially identical to what the tool name already implies.

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 zero waste. It is front-loaded and directly states the action, making it easy to parse.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no annotations or output schema, the description is too brief. It does not explain the effect on the task's watch status, any return value, or prerequisites such as needing to be a current watcher. This leaves significant gaps for the agent.

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 schema has 100% coverage with a single parameter 'id' described as 'Task ID'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 watching a task.' clearly identifies the verb (stop watching) and the resource (task), distinguishing it from sibling tools like taiga_tasks_watch and taiga_tasks_watchers. The purpose is immediately understandable.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. It merely restates the action without mentioning that it applies to tasks the user is currently watching, nor contrasting it with the watch or watchers tools.

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