Stop watching a player

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

Annotations already indicate non-readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds value by stating the operation is 'harmless' and explicitly listing what it does not affect (squad, budget, offers), plus pointing to the ID source. This goes beyond structured fields without contradicting them.

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?

Two terse sentences cover purpose, side effectsvers and ID source. No redundant phrasing.

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?

Simple one-parameter mutation with idempotent/non-destructive annotations and an output schema. It lacks explicit return behavior but the output schema covers that; the description's guidance on side effects and source of IDs is sufficient.

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 only gives type; description adds that IDs come from get_watchlist, which tells the agent where to find valid values. With 0% schema coverage, this compensation is meaningful, though the parameter itself is self-explanatory.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Remove a player from the manager's watchlist.' It clearly distinguishes this from the sibling watch_player tool, leaving no ambiguity about the operation's 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 provides clear context, including the source of valid IDs ('Ids come from get_watchlist'), which tells an agent where to obtain the required input. It doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives, but the operation is unambiguous.

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