add_authority_watch_target

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

Annotations already declare a non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world mutation, and the description adds genuinely new behavior: a user-confirmation gate and a bridge-specific confirm_action requirement. It does not explain idempotency behavior or what happens on a duplicate or failed add, which would be the remaining valuable detail.

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 action and scope front-loaded, followed by the confirmation preconditions. Little waste, though the confirm_action sentence partially duplicates the schema's own description of that field.

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 7-required-parameter mutation with no output schema and very low schema coverage, the description covers the identity of the target and the approval gate but not the idempotency contract or the expected result. Adequate to call safely on confirmation, but not complete.

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 only 14% (just confirm_action), so the description carries most of the burden. It adds meaning for docket_number, authority_type, watchlist ownership, and confirm_action, but leaves usdot, authority_record_id, and idempotency_key entirely uninterpreted.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: follow (add) one evidence-backed authority into an owned watchlist. An agent can tell it is a mutation on a watch target rather than a listing or removal. However, it never contrasts with the sibling add_watch_target, so the agent cannot fully disambiguate the two from the description alone.

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 states a clear precondition workflow: confirm the docket and authority type with the user first, then set confirm_action=true after approval. It does not name when to use add_watch_target instead, nor whether the authority must already reside in the user's evidence set beyond the 'evidence-backed' adjective.

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