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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it removes a channel from the owner's history, clarifying the scope of destruction, but does not detail reversibility, permissions, or side effects beyond that. This is a modest addition beyond annotations.

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?

A single sentence that is front-loaded and wastes no words. Perfectly concise for such a simple tool.

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 simple operation, one parameter, and the presence of annotations, the description is largely complete. It clearly states the action, and the parameter schema provides necessary detail. The lack of usage guidelines is a minor gap, but not critical for this tool.

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 100%, and the single parameter channel_id is fully documented in the schema with an example. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb (tira/removes) and resource (canal/channel) and scope (histórico do dono/owner's history), clearly indicating the action. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like clear_history, but the name forget_watch and the specific channel parameter make the purpose distinguishable.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as clear_history or remove_favorite is provided. The description implies usage for removing a single channel from history, which is adequate but leaves the agent to infer context.

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