delete_watch

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the two safety-critical traits: deletion is permanent and cascades to all watch history. However, it omits permissions/auth requirements, any confirmation or recovery semantics, and whether related resources (e.g., snapshots or tags) are affected.

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 front-loaded sentence with the destructive scope stated immediately and zero filler. Nothing is padded or repeated.

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?

The tool is simple (one fully documented parameter) and an output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. What is missing for a no-annotation destructive tool is any usage context or preconditions, leaving the agent to infer them.

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 100% ('The watch UUID to delete'), so the single parameter is fully documented in structured data. The description adds nothing beyond restating the operation, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.

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?

Specific verb (delete) plus resource (watch) with a scope qualifier ('and all its history'), so the agent knows exactly what is removed. It is distinguishable from create_watch/update_watch/list_watches by the verb alone, but it never names or contrasts a sibling 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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no precondition (e.g., look up the watch first via get_watch), and no note on when to prefer update_watch or recheck_watch instead. Usage is only inferable from the verb and the word 'Permanently'.

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