Delete a channel

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description's real contribution is the confirm-gate behavior and the note that this endpoint has no server-side dry run, which prevents an agent from assuming a safe server-side preview exists. It stops short of saying what collateral state (routes, deliveries) is affected by the deletion.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, then the safety gate. No filler and nothing redundant enough to slow an agent down.

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, open-world mutation with three parameters and no output schema, the definition covers the execution gate but omits consequences: whether deletion cascades to routes or deliveries, whether it is reversible, and what the preview payload looks like. Annotations carry the safety profile, so the omission is not fatal but is a real gap.

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 coverage is 67% and the confirm and idempotencyKey parameters are already documented in the schema nearly verbatim to the description's wording. The one piece of added meaning is that any preview is client-side rather than server-side; the id parameter's format and expected values remain undocumented in both places.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Delete a channel') plus the underlying endpoint (DELETE /v1/notification-channels/{id}), which pins down exactly which object family is affected versus the route siblings. It does not explicitly contrast itself with notifications_updateChannel or notifications_deleteRoute, so an agent must infer the boundary from the noun alone.

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 destructive intent and the confirm gate imply when this should be used, but there is no explicit guidance on when not to delete (e.g., disabling via updateChannel instead) or on what happens to routes that reference the channel. The agent is left to infer the decision rule.

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