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

Beyond annotations, it discloses the immediate effect ('their view closes') and the lasting access revocation ('can't open it again'), plus an owner-request constraint. This is useful behavioral context; the non-destructive annotation remains plausible if interpreted as data preservation rather than access removal.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the effect and followed by the gating condition. There is no filler, and each sentence contributes either behavior or usage guidance.

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?

It covers the action's effect and authorization gate, and annotations carry the safety profile, so an agent can understand the operation. But with three required parameters and only one schema-described field, important invocation context (especially id/key provenance) is missing.

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 description says nothing about the three required parameters. Schema coverage is only 33%, with just 'handle' documented as coming from my_viewers; the sources and meanings of 'id' and 'key' are left entirely unaddressed.

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 states a specific verb and resource: removing a viewer from 'your broadcast.' It is readily distinguishable from listing tools like my_viewers and from broadcast-control siblings, though it does not explicitly name an alternative or sibling.

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 a usage condition, 'Only when your owner asks,' which implies authorization-gated use. However, it does not explain when not to use it, what counts as 'owner,' or whether other removal/blocking paths exist.

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