Test watcher rule

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true; the description adds the crucial context that credentials are masked in the render but real when sent, and that dry_run defaults to true (no send) versus dry_run=false (a real outbound call). This explains the practical safety envelope far beyond the boolean hints.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and purpose, then the masking caveat, then the dry_run semantics. No filler; each sentence carries distinct 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?

Two parameters, no output schema, and a tool whose side effect (a real outbound call) is the main risk. The description covers rendering, masking, and the behavior of both dry_run values, which is everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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% (baseline 3), but the description adds meaning beyond the schema: what dry_run=false actually causes (a real HTTP call proving receiver reachability) rather than just 'render only, do not send'. rule_id gains no extra detail, hence not a 5.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Render a watcher rule's outbound HTTP call') plus the scope (with sample event values), which is clearly distinct from read-only siblings like get_watch_status or get_config_state. An agent can tell what it does without opening the schema.

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?

Gives clear context: use it to inspect URL/headers/body before a real event fires, and dry_run=false is described as the way to prove reachability. It does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the when-to-use signal is strong and unambiguous.

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