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

The annotation destructiveHint=true already signals that this operation deletes data. The description adds valuable context by specifying that the action is scoped to a single channel row and explicitly warns 'NOT the parent', preventing accidental deletion of a company or person. It also identifies the underlying HTTP method as DELETE. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 compact and well-structured: purpose, endpoint mapping, and critical parameter guidance are each covered in short, purposeful sentences. There is no filler, and the most operationally important warning about channel_id is given prominent placement.

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?

Given the destructiveHint annotation, full schema coverage, and presence of an output schema, the description provides enough context for correct invocation. It explains the deletion target, the endpoint, how to obtain the required channel_id, and the parent types. Optional parameters such as workspace_id and idempotency_key are fully documented in the schema, so the description does not need to repeat them.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful guidance beyond the schema by clarifying that channel_id belongs to the specific channel row, not the parent record, and by recommending a lookup path through well_query_records. This helps the agent avoid a common misuse of the parameter even though the schema already describes it as the channel row UUID.

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 begins with a clear, specific statement: 'Remove a contact channel from a company or person.' It names the exact endpoint pattern and enumerates the channel types, making it obvious this is a targeted delete operation on a channel row, not on the parent company or person. This distinguishes it well from siblings like well_add_contact_channel and well_delete_company.

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 gives clear procedural guidance: pass the channel_id, not the parent, and find the correct channel_id by reading the parent with well_query_records. This tells an agent how to obtain the required identifier before invoking the tool. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives, but the resource-scoped endpoint and channel-specific language make the intended use unambiguous.

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