recheck_watch

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says only 'trigger an immediate recheck' and discloses nothing about whether the call blocks or is async, whether it can be rate-limited, what permissions are required, or whether the recheck changes stored data.

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 zero filler, which is appropriate for a one-parameter action tool. It is efficient, though it leaves room for one more sentence of behavioral context without becoming bloated.

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 explained, and the single required parameter is fully documented. The remaining gap is behavioral — for a state-changing trigger with no annotations, the description says nothing about effects, permissions, or rate limits, leaving it only minimally adequate.

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?

With one parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents 'uuid' as 'The watch UUID to recheck'. The description's phrase 'a watch URL' adds slight framing but no format, source, or validation detail beyond what the schema supplies.

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 pairs a specific verb ('trigger') with a specific resource ('a watch URL') and the action is clearly a state-changing recheck, distinct from the read/CRUD siblings like get_watch or update_watch. It does not, however, explicitly name any sibling or contrast itself with them.

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 only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool to call when it wants an on-demand refresh rather than a scheduled one, but the description states no conditions, prerequisites, or alternatives (e.g. when to prefer it over get_watch_history).

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