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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description still adds real value beyond them: it discloses cascade scope (all monitor links, including those created in the panel), the operational effect (alerts stop being delivered through it), and irreversibility.

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 terse sentences, front-loaded with the action and its blast radius, then consequence, then the irreversibility warning. No padding or redundancy.

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 one-parameter destructive tool with no output schema and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies the cascade and irreversibility context an agent needs. Missing only peripheral details such as permission requirements or what happens to already-triggered alerts.

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 a single parameter and schema description coverage is 100%; the schema already explains that `id` is the channel id from listar_canais. The description contributes nothing about parameters, so baseline 3 applies.

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 (apaga) and resource (canal de alerta) plus the deletion scope (all monitor links, including panel-made ones), which distinguishes it from sibling vincular_canal / remover_monitor. It never names a sibling alternative explicitly, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 explains the consequences of deleting but gives no when-to-use framing, no prerequisites, and no pointer to an alternative such as unlinking monitors instead of destroying the channel. The agent must infer that this is the tool for retiring a channel entirely.

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