archive_channelTake a channel off the air and out of every listing. This ARCHIVES rather than destroys: the handle stays reserved and assets and schedule history are retained, so it can be restored. Refuses with 409 while transcodes are still running. Idempotent. This is the reversible way to take a channel down; delete_asset removes individual videos instead.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| channel_id | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description directly contradicts the annotations. It states 'This ARCHIVES rather than destroys' and 'it can be restored,' while the annotations include destructiveHint=true. This is a serious inconsistency that undermines trust in the tool's behavior. Even though the description adds useful context about error handling and reversibility, the contradiction forces a score of 1.
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 three sentences and front-loaded with the primary action. It includes all critical caveats (archival vs destruction, 409 refusal, idempotence, alternative) with zero wasted words. The structure is ideal.
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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, reversibility, error behavior, and the alternative. It lacks details on permissions or return values, but those are not essential given the tool's simplicity. The annotation contradiction is the primary missing element, but that is already accounted for in behavioral transparency. Overall, the description is quite complete.
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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. However, it does not explicitly explain channel_id beyond what the parameter name implies. The tool's action makes it obvious that channel_id identifies the channel to archive, but no additional constraints, formats, or edge cases are mentioned. This is a minor but noticeable gap.
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 tool's action: 'Take a channel off the air and out of every listing.' It uses a specific verb ('archive') with a resource ('channel') and distinguishes itself from the sibling tool delete_asset, which removes individual videos instead. This is a precise purpose statement.
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 explicitly names an alternative (delete_asset) and positions archive_channel as the reversible way to take a channel down. It also provides a concrete precondition/error condition: refuses with a 409 while transcodes are running. This offers clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools are clearly distinct: channel lifecycle (create/get/update/archive/list), asset management (import/delete/list/set_asset_weight), schedule management (get/set/validate/regenerate), and transcode (get status/retry). Minor overlap exists between archive_channel and delete_asset, but descriptions clarify the scope (whole channel vs single video). import_video_from_url and import_youtube_video are distinct in source and ownership requirements.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: archive_channel, create_channel, delete_asset, get_channel, list_assets, set_asset_weight, validate_schedule_rules, etc. Verbs are action-oriented (create, get, list, update, archive, delete, import, set, regenerate, retry) and nouns are resource names (channel, asset, schedule, transcode). No mixed conventions or vague verbs like 'process' or 'do_thing'.
19 tools is well-scoped for a TV channel management server covering channel lifecycle, asset ingestion, scheduling, and transcode monitoring. Each tool addresses a distinct need and the count feels proportional to the complexity of managing a 24/7 linear TV channel. Not bloated with redundant tools, and each has a clear purpose.
The surface covers the core domain comprehensively: channel CRUD (create, get, update, archive, list), asset management (import, delete, list, weight), scheduling (set rules, validate, regenerate, get schedule), and transcode monitoring (status, retry). Minor gaps: no direct way to upload local files (stated as a limitation), no channel deletion (only archive), and no ability to manage playlists explicitly. However, these are acknowledged design constraints or edge cases, so the surface is largely complete for the stated purpose.