inotify_unwatch

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action and the 'active' qualifier but does not describe side effects (e.g., error if watch doesn't exist), reversibility, or any required permissions. For a mutating operation, this is a notable gap.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that states the action and the parameter type with zero waste. It is concise and to the point, fulfilling the requirement that every sentence earns its place.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It tells the agent what it does and what the parameter is, but it omits details about error handling or consequences of removal. Given the simplicity, this is a borderline acceptable level, though more behavioral context would improve it.

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 schema already describes the single parameter 'watch' as 'Watch descriptor ID or path.' The description repeats this information ('by descriptor ID or path') without adding extra meaning like format requirements or how to obtain the descriptor. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Remove'), a resource ('inotify watch'), and the method ('by descriptor ID or path'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like inotify_watch (create) and inotify_list_watches (list), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 description implies usage (when you want to stop monitoring a file/directory) but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or mention any preconditions. Since it's a straightforward removal counterpart to inotify_watch, the usage is somewhat self-evident, but there's no explicit guidance.

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