changedetection_set_watch_state

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

Annotations already declare this a non-destructive, idempotent, non-read-only operation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that omitting 'confirm' yields a dry-run, but that exact behavior is already documented in the schema's confirm field, and it discloses nothing further about reversibility of the state change or the dry-run response shape.

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 front-loaded sentences with the core operation first, then endpoint detail, then the dry-run note. The raw 'GET /api/v1/watch/{uuid}' line is mildly noisy but does flag the unusual read-verb-write behavior.

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 4-parameter mutation tool with annotations but no output schema, the description covers the action and dry-run path but leaves the most consequential ambiguity unexplored: what state results if only one of paused/muted is supplied, or if neither is. That is exactly the kind of detail an agent needs before calling a state-mutating tool.

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?

The description names the two behavioral parameters (paused, muted), which is the main semantic contribution since those two have no schema description text (50% coverage). It does not say whether you may set one without the other or what happens when both are omitted, and the dry-run/confirm semantics are already fully spelled out in the schema's confirm description.

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 ('Set') plus the exact attributes ('paused or muted') and the resource ('a watch'), so the operation is unmistakable. It does not name or differentiate from near neighbors such as changedetection_update_watch or changedetection_set_tag_muted, so it stops short of a 5.

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 verb and resource imply the usage context (toggling a single watch's pause/mute state), but there is no explicit when-to-use, no exclusion, and no pointer to siblings like set_tag_muted for bulk/tag-level muting. The agent must infer the boundary itself.

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