delete_channel_zone_assignment

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

There are no annotations, so the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only says 'Remove' without explaining permanence, reversibility, side effects, or required permissions. For a deletion/mutation tool, this leaves significant uncertainty about what happens to the zone and channel after removal.

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, concise sentence that directly states the operation with no filler. It is front-loaded with the verb and object, making it easy to parse. For a simple one-parameter delete operation, this length is appropriate.

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 simple, with one parameter and no output schema, so a short description is acceptable. However, it lacks clarification that the zone object itself is not deleted (only the assignment), and it omits any mention of whether removal is permanent or has associated effects. With no annotations to fill the gap, slightly more context would improve completeness.

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 provides 100% coverage for the single id parameter with the description 'Channel zone assignment ID'. The tool description adds little beyond that, only implying the id identifies the assignment to remove. Since the schema already carries the semantic weight, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Remove') and the resource ('zone from a channel'), which conveys the main purpose. However, it is slightly ambiguous whether it removes the zone object itself or just the assignment relationship, though the tool name and id parameter clarify it targets the assignment. It does not explicitly differentiate from the similar vast_delete_channel_zone_assignment sibling.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_channel_zone_assignment, update_channel_zone_assignment, or vast_delete_channel_zone_assignment. The usage context is only implied by the tool name and description, with no exclusions or conditions.

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