Watch a player

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

Annotations already provide idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=falsechers. The description adds domain-level transparency: 'commits nothing and spends nothing, it only marks the player.' This meaningfully clarifies the side-effect profile beyond the raw hint flags.

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 tight sentences plus a short domain-level clarification. The core action is first, the side-effect note is second, and the ID-source pointer is last. No 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?

Complete for a one-parameter, idempotent, non-destructive tool with an output schema. It covers the effect, the safety profile, and where to get the only argument; nothing material is missing.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does by telling the agent player_id values come from get_market, get_squad, or get_standings. The meaning of 'player ID' is not deeply expanded, but the source guidance is exactly what an agent needs.

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?

States exactly what it does with a specific verb and resource: 'Add a player to the manager's watchlist.' This is unambiguous and clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like get_watchlist.

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?

Clearly implies when to use it: when a player should be monitored. It also tells the agent where valid IDs come from (get_market, get_squad, get_standings). It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, so it stops one step short of a 5.

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