dv_watch_create

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

Annotations already declare write (readOnlyHint=false), non-idempotent, non-destructive, open-world. The description adds two pieces of genuine behavior beyond them: the watch requires an external worker to run checks, and existing results form a baseline unless explicitly included. It still omits lifecycle details (how long the watch persists, how interval_seconds governs execution), so the added context is real but thin.

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?

Three short sentences with the action front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though for a tool with five parameters and a nested request object the terseness edges toward under-specification rather than disciplined concision.

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 not be described. However, the tool has high input complexity (nested SearchRequest, five params, 0% schema coverage) and the description says almost nothing about the parameters or the watch lifecycle, leaving meaningful gaps for correct invocation.

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 carry parameter meaning, and it barely does. 'Unless explicitly included' gestures at include_existing, but name, request, recheck_missing, and interval_seconds are entirely unexplained, and the nested SearchRequest shape is never addressed.

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 and resource ('Persist ... watch') plus a scope qualifier ('owner-scoped'), which is more than a tautology of the name. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the other dv_watch_* siblings (update/list/delete/check), so an agent gets the what but not the why-this-one.

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?

'A worker must run checks' implies the watch is passive and that a separate check mechanism (likely dv_watch_check) is required, which is useful implied guidance. But there is no explicit when-to-use versus dv_watch_update/list/delete, and no stated prerequisites or exclusions.

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