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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, but the description adds substantive context beyond them: what exactly is destroyed (monitor links, including panel-created ones), the non-obvious downstream effect (monitors keep checking but stop alerting; a monitor with only this channel ends up with empty `channels`), irreversibility, and the required confirmation step.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: the destructive consequence comes first, then alternatives, then safety protocol. Every sentence carries information, though the confirmation instruction makes it a touch long for a single-parameter tool.

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?

No output schema, but the description discloses the return value ("Devolve `removed` com o id"). Combined with the destruction semantics, confirmation protocol, and alternative routing, an agent has everything needed to invoke this safely.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema already documents `id`, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by telling the agent where to source the value ("campo `id` de listar_canais") and that the user should be shown label+destination from listar_canais when confirming.

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?

Specific verb+resource ("Apaga um canal de alerta de vez") with explicit scope: it removes the channel AND all its monitor links. Clearly distinguished from siblings like testar_canal (check) and remover_monitor (different resource).

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?

Explicit when-to-use ("Use só quando o usuário pedir pra remover o canal") and names the alternative for the adjacent need ("pra conferir se ele funciona, use testar_canal"). Also prescribes the confirmation flow before invoking.

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