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

Annotations provide destructiveHint: true, and the description adds valuable context about authorization requirements ('Full Access MCP token') and plan eligibility ('eligible paid plan'). This goes beyond the structured annotation and helps the agent understand prerequisites for invoking the tool.

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 two sentences with no redundancy. The primary action is front-loaded, and the prerequisites are stated in a straightforward second sentence. Every word earns its place.

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 one-parameter destructive operation with a clear annotation, the description is largely complete: it states the action, the parameter, and prerequisites. It does not fully explain the implications of deletion (e.g., permanence, cascading effects), but the destructiveHint annotation covers the core risk and the tool's simplicity limits the missing context.

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 coverage is 100%, and the schema already fully documents channel_id with a clear description. The tool description merely echoes 'by ID' without adding any additional meaning or constraints, so it offers no value beyond the structured schema.

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 a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('notification channel') along with the key identifier (ID), distinguishing it from sibling tools like disable-notification-channel. It does not explicitly name alternatives but the action 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like disable-notification-channel (temporary disable) or test-notification-channel. It only states prerequisites, not usage context or exclusions, so an agent must infer when deletion is appropriate.

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