create_watcher_update

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

Annotations already indicate this is a non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds only 'Create or act on watcher update' and the HTTP method, without disclosing side effects, state changes, or what 'acting on' entails. It does not contradict the annotations, but it also adds little behavioral context beyond them.

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 compact and front-loads the operation, HTTP endpoint, and the single required argument. There is no filler, though the phrase 'or act on' is vague and could be replaced with a more precise verb.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description is not complete enough for an agent to understand what a watcher update is, when to call this tool, or what effects to expect. The pointer to /schema helps with body construction but does not compensate for the missing domain context and usage conditions.

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 only defines an opaque 'body' object with additionalProperties true and no field descriptions. The description adds a useful instruction to consult the matching GET or /schema endpoint before calling, which tells the agent how to discover the expected body fields. However, it does not provide concrete field semantics or an example body, leaving a clear gap.

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 mostly restates the tool name as 'Create ... watcher update' and adds a vague 'or act on' that does not explain what a watcher update is or what the tool actually does. The endpoint 'POST /api/watcher/update' is provided, but there is no semantic content that distinguishes this operation from other create_* tools.

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 offers no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, and the sibling list contains many create_* operations without any differentiators. The only procedural note is to read the matching GET or /schema endpoint first, which is a prerequisite for constructing the body, not a tool-selection criterion.

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