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

Annotations only flag destructiveHint and idempotentHint; the description adds the concrete blast radius (every auto-investigation rule bound to the channel is CASCADE-deleted), states the change is unrecoverable, notes the ADMIN auth requirement, and discloses the return shape. That is substantial context beyond the structured fields.

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 sentences, each carrying unique weight: what is removed, who may do it, and the irreversible consequence. The actionable warning is front-loaded and nothing is restated from the schema or annotations.

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 destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers the resource, the authorization requirement, the irreversible cascade behavior, and the return value. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and to warn a user first.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage on a single parameter, the schema already documents channelId including its format example. The description only refers to it generically and adds no format, sourcing, or constraint information beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (Remove) and resource (a Slack channel id from the notification-channel list), with scope limited to the authenticated customer. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling add_alert_channel and from the alert-rule tools.

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?

Gives the key precondition (ADMIN only) and a strong caveat about cascade side effects, which tells an agent when this is safe to call. It does not name a preferred alternative or a when-not-to-use condition relative to siblings like delete_alert_rule, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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