update_watch

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose whether updates are partial or full, whether omitted fields are preserved, what permissions are required, or whether the change is reversible — all relevant for a mutation tool. The only partial-update hint ('Set null to keep existing') lives in the schema, not the description.

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 short sentence that front-loads the verb and resource with no filler. It is efficient, though the brevity reflects under-specification rather than tight coverage of necessary information.

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?

For a 6-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, the description omits critical behavioral context: update semantics, permission requirements, and any side effects. An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but the mutation behavior itself is left entirely to inference.

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%, so the schema already documents every parameter (tag, url, title, paused, minutes_between_checks, uuid). The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond it, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (update) and resource (watch) with the scope 'existing watch's settings', which is clear enough to distinguish from create_watch and delete_watch. It stops short of naming or contrasting those siblings 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?

The phrase 'existing watch' implies the tool targets already-created watches, but there is no guidance on when to use this versus create_watch, delete_watch, or recheck_watch, and no prerequisites (e.g., needing the UUID) are stated.

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