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

Beyond the destructiveHint=true annotation, the description details the exact blast radius: disappearance from list_channels, broken slug targeting, lost user/device assignments, API-key delivery stopping, and the reassurance that users/devices themselves survive. It also states irreversibility through MCP and the return payload — context annotations alone do not provide.

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 delete action is front-loaded, followed by consequences, non-consequences, the irreversibility warning, and the return value. Every sentence carries distinct information about scope or safety, with no filler.

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?

With destructiveHint and no-readOnly annotations covering the safety profile, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema present, the description fills the remaining gaps: consequence scope, irreversibility, and confirmation requirement. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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 100%, so both slug and public_id (including the 'provide one or the other, both must match' rule) are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds only an incidental note that the slug stops working for targeting, not new parameter semantics.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Delete a channel') and immediately enumerates concrete effects (removal from list_channels, slug stops resolving, assignments stop applying), leaving no ambiguity about what operation this is. Though it never names a sibling explicitly, 'delete_channel' is unmistakable among update_channel/create_channel.

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?

It gives one real usage guideline: 'This cannot be undone through MCP, so confirm with the user first.' However it never states when to delete versus update/deprecate a channel, nor any preconditions beyond confirmation, so usage is only partially covered.

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