changedetection_recheck_tag

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

Annotations already declare that this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, open-world operation. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: it is a GET endpoint with recheck=1, it queues work for every watch in the tag, and omitting confirm yields a dry-run. It does not mention auth, rate limits, or duplicate-recheck implications, so it is not exhaustive.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, then the endpoint detail, then the dry-run caveat. Nothing is wasted and the key information is immediately visible.

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 two-parameter tool with full schema coverage, annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior: tag-wide rechecking, confirm-to-execute, and dry-run omission. Minor missing context includes tag-not-found behavior or whether the dry-run preview returns a count, but those are not critical for correct invocation.

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%, and the schema already explains uuid and confirm in detail. The description reinforces the confirm dry-run behavior and the URL path, but adds no syntax or constraints beyond what the schema provides.

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 states a specific verb and scope: 'Queue a recheck for every watch in a tag.' That scope distinguishes it implicitly from recheck_watch and recheck_all, but it does not explicitly name those siblings, so it falls short of the clearest possible differentiation.

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?

It gives a useful dry-run instruction ('Omit confirm for a dry-run') and makes the tag-wide scope clear, but it does not explicitly say when to use this versus recheck_watch or recheck_all. The selection guidance is implied by scope rather than stated.

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