stop_watcher

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

The annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description's 'Stop' is consistent with mutation. It adds some context by scoping the action to 'legacy local' watcher state, but it does not say what is actually destroyed, what side effects occur, or whether the operation is idempotent.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though the wording is slightly awkward and the brevity comes at the cost of needed details.

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?

Despite the low complexity, the tool is destructive and has an undocumented parameter, yet the description does not clarify the effect or the role of root. The lack of an output schema raises the burden to explain observable behavior, which is not met.

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 0% and the description never mentions the single 'root' parameter. The optional root string is left entirely undocumented, so the description adds no meaning beyond the schema's bare property name.

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 the imperative 'Stop' and names a specific resource ('the legacy local watcher state'), so the core action is identifiable and contrasts with the sibling watcher_status. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the other sibling tools or clarify what 'state' refers to.

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?

There is no guidance about when to invoke this tool versus alternatives such as watcher_status or doctor. The context implied by the name is the only signal for usage, and no exclusions or prerequisites are provided.

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