removeWatcher

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

No annotations are provided, and the description offers no behavioral details beyond the action. Missing information about side effects (e.g., error if watcher doesn't exist), authorization needs, or response behavior.

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 excessively short (two words) but not valuable concise; it omits essential information. A well-structured description would front-load key details about the target resource and parameters.

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?

Given the lack of annotations, output schema, and minimal description, the tool definition is grossly incomplete. The agent cannot determine the resource type (issue? project?) or the expected outcome, making reliable invocation unlikely.

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 explain parameters. It fails to define the meaning of issueId, userId, or the format enum. The agent lacks understanding of how these relate to the removal operation.

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 'Remove watcher' is essentially a restatement of the tool name with a verb. It fails to specify what resource (e.g., issue) the watcher is removed from, leaving the agent to infer from parameters and sibling tool names. Barely above a tautology.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like addWatcher or other removal tools. No context about prerequisites, typical usage scenarios, or conditions.

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