TeamSpeak MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Delete a channel' implies a destructive, irreversible operation, but the description doesn't mention permission requirements, whether deletion can be undone, what happens to associated data, or error conditions. The input schema's 'force' parameter suggests there might be constraints (like clients present), but the description doesn't explain these behavioral aspects.

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 description is extremely concise at just three words, with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the essential action and resource. Every word earns its place, though this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness.

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 operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't address critical context like what 'deleting a channel' entails, whether it's reversible, what permissions are needed, or what the consequences are. Given the complexity of a deletion operation and the lack of structured safety information, the description should provide more behavioral guidance.

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%, with both parameters ('channel_id' and 'force') well-documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter information beyond what's already in the structured schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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 'Delete a channel' clearly states the action (delete) and target resource (channel), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from potential alternatives like 'update_channel' or 'manage_channel_permissions' that might also affect channels, nor does it specify what type of channel (e.g., communication channel, data channel) is being deleted.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'update_channel', 'list_channels', and 'manage_channel_permissions', there's no indication whether deletion is irreversible, requires specific permissions, or should be used as a last resort. The agent receives no usage context beyond the basic action.

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