Delete a channel or supergroup

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the description does not need to restate destructiveness. It adds value by specifying that deletion is permanent and restricted to the creator, which are useful behavioral traits beyond the annotations.

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 conveys the core action, permanence, and authorization. Every word earns its place, and the title adds complementary scope ('channel or supergroup') without redundancy.

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 tool with two unannotated parameters and no output schema, the description leaves unanswered questions: what format is 'peer'? What role does 'accountId' play? What is the return value? The annotation only covers the destructive nature, so the description is incomplete for an agent to confidently invoke it.

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 schema has zero description coverage for its two parameters (peer, accountId), and the description provides no explanation of what these parameters mean or how they relate to the channel. The description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage, leaving the agent without parameter semantics.

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 verb ('delete') and resource ('channel'), and adds the permanence aspect ('permanently delete') and the access constraint ('creator only'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like leave_channel or delete_messages.

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 conveys clear context: this is for permanent deletion by the creator. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives such as leave_channel, so it stops short of full guidance.

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