reset_channel

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it drops a pinned session, does not cancel running work, and affects future dispatches. However, it does not mention side effects, permissions, or return behavior, leaving minor gaps.

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?

Three sentences deliver all key points: action, use case, and limitation/alternative. No wasted words. Front-loaded with the primary action.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, and behavioral distinction. Missing are return values, error cases, or prerequisites, but the tool's simplicity reduces the need for exhaustive detail.

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?

The single 'channel' parameter has 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not elaborate on its meaning, format, or where to obtain it. The implied meaning from the tool name and description is minimal.

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 uses a specific verb ('Drop a channel's pinned session') and clearly identifies the resource and outcome. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling 'cancel_dispatch' by stating what it does not do.

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?

Explicit usage context is provided: 'when a project MCP server has wedged inside the channel's session'. It also tells when not to use it and directs to an alternative ('use cancel_dispatch for that').

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