delete_channel

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. Deleting a channel is destructive and likely irreversible, yet the description does not mention permanence, permission requirements, or effects on messages/history. This is a significant transparency gap for a mutation tool.

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?

While the description is extremely short, it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. It contains only one trivial sentence that restates the tool's name. It doesn't earn its place because it fails to provide essential context expected for a destructive operation.

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 is destructive, has no annotations, and no parameter coverage. Although an output schema exists, the description omits critical details about permissions, side effects, and reversibility. For a simple but dangerous operation, this level of incompleteness is inadequate.

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 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters. It does not mention channel_id or reason, nor does it clarify their purpose, format, or optionality beyond what the schema already shows. The description adds zero semantic value for parameters.

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 clearly states the action (delete) and resource (a Discord channel). It's unambiguous, but doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like create_channel or edit_channel, nor does it specify any scope or constraints. It meets the 'clear but no sibling differentiation' criterion.

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 guidance on when to use this tool, what permissions are required, or any prerequisites. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned. The description provides no usage context beyond the bare action, amounting to 'no guidance'.

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