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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses important consequences: waiting posts are deleted, pending posts are refunded, and published posts remain on the network. This is valuable behavioral context for a destructive operation, though it does not mention permissions or authentication requirements.

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 short and front-loaded with the core action and consequences. However, the trailing 'Free. Free.' is nonsensical and repeated, wasting space and slightly undermining clarity.

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 destructive, single-parameter tool, the description covers the key consequence of deletion and refunds. Annotations already supply safety and idempotency hints, so no output schema or further detail is strictly necessary.

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?

The schema has 100% description coverage and the single parameter is documented as 'A channel_id from social_channels.' The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already provides, which is acceptable given full coverage.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Remove a channel from the business's social workspace.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools such as social_connect or social_channels.

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 does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives like social_delete_post or social_channel_rules. It implies the disconnect operation but provides no explicit exclusions, preconditions, or alternative routing guidance.

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