delete_archived_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 behavioral disclosure. The word 'permanently' clearly communicates irreversibility, which is a critical behavioral trait for a delete operation. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, required permissions, error behavior, or what happens to associated entities; it only states the core destructive nature.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no superfluous words. It conveys the action, the target resource, and the permanence of the operation efficiently, earning its place fully.

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 one-parameter destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete: it names the action, the exact target type, and the key consequence (permanence). It could mention prerequisites more explicitly, but the 'archived' qualifier already implies the primary precondition, and the schema covers the parameter.

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 input schema already fully describes the only parameter ('id' as 'Archived channel ID') with 100% coverage, so the description does not need to add parameter details. The tool description adds no additional semantic value beyond the schema, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 states a specific action ('Permanently delete') and a specific resource ('an archived channel'), clearly distinguishing it from related tools like archive_channel, unarchive_channel, and delete_channel. The qualifier 'archived' precisely scopes the tool's target.

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 phrase 'archived channel' implies the tool should only be used on channels that are already archived, which is useful contextual guidance. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives (e.g., unarchive_channel to restore, or delete_channel for active channels) or provide exclusion criteria, so usage guidance remains implied rather than explicit.

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