Manage Watches (change-detection)

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

With no annotations, the description discloses important behavioral traits: 'Adding baselines current state' indicates that add sets a baseline and does not immediately report changes, and 'watched by content hash' explains the mechanism for URLs. It does not mention authorization, rate limits, or response formats, but the disclosed behaviors are significant beyond what the schema shows.

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 three sentences, with the action front-loaded in the first sentence. Each subsequent sentence adds essential context without redundancy, making it concise and well structured.

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 description covers the tool's domain, the two watch types, and the baseline behavior, which is adequate for a simple CRUD tool. However, it does not describe return values (e.g., what list returns or what add/remove return), and there is no output schema to compensate. Overall it is quite complete but not fully.

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 covers all parameters with descriptions, but the description elaborates on target by specifying that it can be a ticker/name/CIK or a URL, and clarifies that formType applies to filings watches. This adds contextual meaning beyond the schema, so a 4 is warranted.

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 begins with 'Add, remove, or list watches,' clearly stating the verb and resource. It further explains that watches can target SEC filings or URLs, and distinguishes itself from the sibling tool watch_check by noting that watch_check is used later to see what's new. This makes the purpose unmistakable and differentiates it from related tools.

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 context on what kinds of targets are supported (ticker/name/CIK for filings, https:// URLs for content hash), and explicitly recommends using watch_check later to see changes. It does not enumerate alternative tools for other purposes, but the guidance for when to use this tool is clear. A 4 is appropriate because it lacks explicit exclusions.

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