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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden and does so for the most important traits: it is destructive, irreversible ('No undo'), breaks the embed code, and requires prior preview plus user approval. It does not cover permissions/authentication or response behavior, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and effect, then irreversibility, then the prerequisite. Every sentence adds decision-relevant information 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?

For a simple two-parameter destructive tool whose parameters are fully documented in the schema, the description covers the critical context: side effect, irreversibility, and approval gate. It could be more complete by noting permission requirements or post-delete behavior, but the essential invocation context is present.

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 the parameter schema already explains both required UUIDs and their sources. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline score appropriate.

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: removing a channel from an agent, with the concrete effect that the embed code stops working. This distinguishes it from siblings like delete_agent or update_agent_connection by focusing on a channel connection rather than the agent itself or a modification.

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 explicitly states the required sequence: only after preview_delete_agent_connection and explicit user approval. This gives the agent a clear gating condition and names the prerequisite sibling tool, leaving little inference needed before invocation.

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