watch.remove

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully reveals that deleting the watch item also deletes its history, which is an important side effect. However, it does not state irreversibility, permission requirements, or effects on active watch jobs.

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 with no filler. Every word contributes, and the parenthetical '含其历史' adds a meaningful behavioral detail without unnecessary length.

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 destructive operation, the description is minimally adequate, and the output schema covers return-value details. However, with no annotations, it leaves usage routing and side-effect safety expectations underspecified.

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 does not explain watch_id or how to obtain it. The relationship between '监控项' and the required integer watch_id is implied, but the description adds little beyond the parameter name and schema title.

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 clearly states the delete verb ('删除') and the resource ('监控项', watch item), and adds the scoping detail that history is also removed ('含其历史'). It identifies the core operation well, though it does not explicitly contrast with siblings like watch.cancel.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as watch.cancel, watch.disable, or watch.enable. The description implies deletion of an existing watch item, but leaves the choice between watch.* siblings entirely implicit.

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