dv_watch_delete

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

Annotations already declare destructive=true and idempotent=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description still earns credit by disclosing effects beyond the annotations: the seen set is destroyed along with the watch, and already-enqueued events survive for audit/delivery. Auth requirements and reversibility are not addressed, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

A single sentence with the destructive action front-loaded and the retention caveat placed after a semicolon. No filler, no repetition of the name or annotations.

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 shape needn't be described, and annotations cover the destructive/idempotent profile. The description covers the two things an agent most needs for a delete: what is destroyed and what survives. Only permission/auth prerequisites are 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the parameter burden, but it only hints at the target via 'this owner's watch'. The schema's regex pattern supplies ID format, and watch_id is the sole required param, so the baseline of 3 applies with no compensating detail.

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 (delete) and resource (the watch and its seen set), and adds the scope 'this owner's'. It is clearly distinguishable from the create/list/update/check/ack siblings by the verb alone, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by 'Delete this owner's watch' but there is no stated when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or comparison against siblings such as dv_watch_ack or dv_watch_update. The agent must infer that this is the terminal teardown operation.

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