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

Beyond the readOnly and non-destructive annotations, it discloses that the tool previews dependent contacts and conversations, returns an impact token, changes nothing, may be blocked by protected history, and does not revoke external provider accounts. The token caveat is especially important behavioral context.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by concise caveats about protected history, Gmail handling, and the token's limits. Every sentence adds relevant selection or behavioral context without waste.

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?

The tool's safety profile is covered by annotations, its two parameters are fully documented by the schema, and an output schema exists. The description adds the needed preview scope, token caveat, and Gmail alternative, so an agent has enough to invoke it correctly.

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%, so agent_id and channel_id are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond that baseline, which is sufficient here but not additive.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it previews what channel_remove would delete, including dependent contacts and conversations, and returns an impact token without changing anything. This clearly distinguishes it from the actual removal sibling channel_remove.

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 establishes the preview-before-removal use case and names alternatives: Gmail removal should use gmail_disconnect instead. It also notes that protected history may block removal and that the token is not human assent or a reservation, giving the agent clear conditions and exclusions.

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