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

Annotations already declare destructive=true and idempotent=true, but the description goes well beyond them: it warns the action is irreversible and should be user-confirmed, documents the refusal-when-held behavior with holder names, states that destroying an already-gone channel is a no-op, discloses the Slack-integration exception, and notes the Valet account requirement.

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 irreversibility warning is correctly front-loaded and almost every sentence carries distinct behavioral information. It is dense and slightly rambling across the scope branches, but there is little pure filler to cut.

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 destructive, no-output tool this covers the full decision space: authorization prerequisite, irreversibility, refusal paths, idempotency, and the Slack edge case. Nothing an agent needs to call it safely and correctly 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds operational meaning by tying the presence/absence of name to which scope is targeted and what happens in each case. It adds little on org_name beyond the schema's default-organization note, keeping it short of a 5.

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 opening sentence gives a specific verb and resource plus scope ('Destroy a channel and its routes'), which immediately separates it from detach_channel or destroy_resource. The conditional branches (with name vs without) further pin down exactly what is being destroyed.

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 explicitly routes between this tool and detach_channel in both directions: an org channel held by agents must be freed with detach_channel first, and a channel the agent only holds should be detached rather than destroyed. It also names list_channels and create_channel as the sources of the channels in each scope, so the agent knows when this call applies.

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