remove_watch

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Delete,' which indicates a mutation, but does not explain whether the deletion is permanent, whether authentication is required, what happens if the watch does not exist, or how the operation signals success or failure. This is a significant gap for a destructive operation without annotation support.

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 that gets straight to the point. It avoids unnecessary detail and is appropriately front-loaded. However, it may be slightly under-specified given the lack of behavioral details, but for a simple delete tool, this length is acceptable.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description must provide enough context for the agent to understand the tool's behavior. It lacks information about return values, error handling, permissions, or side effects. For a mutation tool, this is incomplete; an agent might call it without knowing whether the operation actually succeeded or what the consequences are.

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 already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter 'name' with the description 'Watch name to delete.' The tool description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond that, so it meets the baseline of 3. It does not explain format constraints, case sensitivity, or how to find the exact watch name.

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 ('Delete') and a specific resource ('saved watch'), and clarifies it covers both search and listing watches. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like watch_search, watch_listing, list_watches, and check_watch, which involve creating, listing, or checking watches rather than deleting them.

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 intended use is implied: use this tool when you want to remove a saved watch. However, the description does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives (e.g., if you want to create a watch, use watch_search or watch_listing). No exclusions or context are given beyond the basic action.

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