changedetection_recheck_watch

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

Annotations already declare the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false). The description adds value by making clear that the default, without confirm, is a non-writing dry-run and by exposing the underlying endpoint, so an agent understands the safe-preview path. It does not say how the queued recheck completes or whether it can be awaited.

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, with the core action front-loaded and the dry-run caveat immediately after. The raw endpoint string is mildly redundant but is compact and adds a tracing hook.

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 mutation tool with full schema coverage, annotations and no output schema, the description covers action, scope and the default-safe behavior. The only real gap is what happens after queueing, which is minor given the tool's simplicity.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema already explains both uuid and the dry-run semantics of confirm in more detail than the description. The description's 'Omit confirm for a dry-run' merely restates the schema, 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 and resource ('Queue a recheck') and scopes it to 'one watch', which implicitly separates it from the recheck_tag and recheck_all siblings. It stops short of naming those siblings, but the scope qualifier is enough for an agent to disambiguate.

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 'Omit confirm for a dry-run' line gives real operational guidance on the write path, but there is no explicit statement of when to choose this versus recheck_tag or recheck_all, nor any prerequisite such as the watch existing.

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