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

Goes beyond annotations by disclosing fallback behavior per channel type (email falls back to platform default; slack/whatsapp stop delivering) and clarifies the secret is NOT deleted. These are non-obvious side effects. However, it doesn't mention permissions or whether deletion is reversible despite destructiveHint.

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 tight sentences, each earning its place: core action, per-channel fallback behavior, and secret-cleanup routing. Front-loaded with the primary purpose.

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-param destructive tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers the key non-obvious behaviors (fallback semantics, secret independence) and routes to delete_secret. It lacks param format guidance and permission details, but is largely 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the single parameter channel_id has no description. The tool description doesn't explain the parameter's format or how to obtain it. With 1 param and a low-coverage schema, the description should compensate but only marginally does by implying it identifies a channel.

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?

Clear verb+resource: 'Delete a notification channel'. Distinguishable from sibling delete_secret and delete_notification_template, though it doesn't explicitly contrast itself against them. The core purpose is unambiguous.

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 implies usage (deleting a channel) and cross-references delete_secret for cleaning up the underlying secret, which is helpful guidance. But it doesn't state prerequisites, permissions needed, or when deletion is appropriate versus disabling.

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