remove_contact_channel

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and provide the title, so the safety profile is partly known. The description adds nothing beyond them: it does not say whether removal is reversible, whether the whole channel entry or only a value is deleted, what permissions or roles are required, or what happens if the value is not present. For a destructive mutation, that is thin.

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?

It is short and front-loaded with the verb, so nothing is wasted, but the brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined concision. The ellipsis reads as an unfinished thought rather than a deliberate abbreviation.

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?

With four required parameters, no output schema, and a destructive mutation, the definition should carry far more: which field identifies the channel uniquely, whether provider and value must match an existing entry, and what the result is on success or mismatch. The single clause covers almost none of that.

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 only 25% – person is documented, but workspace and value are not, and the provider enum has no explanation of how it interacts with value. The description's 'email/phone/…' loosely gestures at the provider enum but explains nothing about workspace scoping or the expected format of value, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 gives a specific verb plus resource: remove a contact channel (email/phone/etc.) from a person. That is enough to tell it apart from create/add sibling operations, though it never explicitly names add_contact_channel as its counterpart and the trailing ellipsis leaves the set of channel types fuzzy.

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 the inverse tool for adding a channel, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer from the name alone that this is the counterpart to add_contact_channel.

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