Delete Channel

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is known; the description earns credit for disclosing a concrete cascading side effect — the channel is stripped from every alert rule of the app that posts to it. It stops short of stating irreversibility, whether affected alerts are broken or auto-disabled, or permission requirements, so it adds one useful fact rather than full 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?

One sentence is concise in length but poorly structured: it begins with the connective 'Also', which is a dangling reference to a primary statement that was never made. Brevity here is under-specification rather than efficiency.

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, multi-parameter mutation with no output schema and zero schema documentation, the definition is far too thin — no statement of the action, no parameter meaning, no confirmation or irreversibility note. Only the cascade-to-alert-rules behavior is covered.

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?

With five parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the full burden of explaining parameters, yet it mentions none of workspaceSlug, appSlug, channelId, env, or region. The enum on env and the production/preview/development distinction go entirely unexplained.

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 never states the primary action or resource; it opens with 'Also removes it...' where 'it' and the deletion verb exist only in the tool name/title. It conveys a consequence of deletion but not what the tool itself does, so an agent must fall back on the name to know this deletes a notification channel.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives such as updateChannel or deleteAlert, and no prerequisite context (e.g., permissions or environment scoping). Only the implicit signal that this is a destructive channel operation, which the name already supplies.

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