watchlist_remove

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context beyond them: that past readings are retained, which scopes exactly what destruction occurs, and that a blank geo clears the term from every location.

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 with zero waste; the core action is front-loaded and the geo-scoping caveat follows immediately. Every clause earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile. For a two-parameter mutation, the description covers the key retention and geo-scope behaviors; only keyword input format and failure cases are left implicit.

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%, so the description must compensate. It meaningfully clarifies 'geo' (blank removes from every location) but says nothing about 'keywords' format, even though that is the required parameter. Half the parameters are effectively documented.

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 a specific verb ('Take terms off') and resource ('the watchlist'), which clearly distinguishes it from the sibling watchlist_add. No sibling is named explicitly, but the add/remove pair is unambiguous from the name and description.

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 explains what removal does but gives no guidance on when to use this versus watchlist_add or watchlist_report, and no prerequisites or state conditions are mentioned. Usage is only implied by the verb.

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