Unwatch Course Sections

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false; the description adds the crucial clarification that only the local list mutates and that no write reaches OBS except reading the active term for 'stale_only'. This meaningfully bounds the blast radius of a 'remove' operation that the annotations alone leave ambiguous.

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 tight sentences: effect first, mode-selection second, side-effect scope last. No filler, and the most decision-relevant constraint (exactly one mode) is front-loaded.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. Combined with annotations, the description covers what changes, what does not, and how to pick a mode; only edge-case behavior (empty selection, nonexistent CRNs) is left unspecified.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and no enums, the description carries the full burden and does so: it defines 'crns' as specific sections, 'stale_only' as entries from any term other than the one OBS currently serves, and 'clear_all' as the entire list, plus the mutual-exclusion rule. It does not cover behavior for unknown CRNs or for supplying none of the three.

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 and resource ('Remove sections from the local seat watch list') that an agent can immediately distinguish from the sibling watch_course_sections and list_watched_course_sections tools. The scope word 'local' immediately frames the operation.

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 an explicit selection rule among the three modes ('Give exactly one of ...') with a plain-language gloss of each mode, so the agent knows which parameter to set for which intent. It stops short of naming the counterpart adding tool or stating what happens if none of the three is supplied.

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