unwatch_file

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

The description says the tool stops a watch, which is a state-changing cancellation operation, while the annotations declare readOnlyHint=true. Although the added note about independent subscriptions and pending waits remaining active is useful, the core action conflicts with the read-only annotation.

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 two short sentences and front-loads the main action. Every sentence contributes useful information without waste.

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 one-parameter cancellation tool with no output schema, the description covers the main behavior and clarifies what remains active. It omits idempotency and invalid-watchId behavior, which keeps it from being fully 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?

There is one required parameter, watchId, with 0% schema description coverage. The description implies that watchId identifies a watch created by watch_file, but it does not explain the required format or error behavior; the schema pattern supplies some format detail.

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 uses a specific verb, "Stop," and names the exact resource, "a watch created by watch_file." This clearly distinguishes the tool from watch_file and implies its role among the watch-related siblings.

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 gives clear usage context: use this to stop a watch that was created by watch_file. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives such as wait_for_file_change, so it falls short of a 5.

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