delete_channel

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full behavioral burden: it does disclose the cascade (notes, clips, automation are destroyed), which is genuinely useful. But it says nothing about irreversibility, whether the deletion can be undone, required auth/state, or what happens if the id doesn't exist — significant gaps for a destructive, non-read-only operation.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the cascade detail appended where it belongs. Nothing redundant or padded.

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 cascade disclosure covers the most important non-obvious fact for a 1-parameter destructive tool. But with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves irreversibility, failure modes, and confirmation expectations entirely unstated — an agent could invoke this irretrievably without knowing the risk profile.

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 0% with a bare integer field, so the description must compensate; it clarifies that `channel` is an id. That is a marginal but real addition. It does not say whether the id must exist, whether it's a track index vs. a project-level channel id, or what an invalid value yields.

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?

Uses a specific verb (Delete) with a specific resource (channel) and names the requiring identifier. It also enumerates the cascaded contents (notes, clips, automation), which no sibling tool does. It is unambiguous next to delete_clip or delete_pattern, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them.

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 verb plus the enumeration of collateral deletions implies when this is appropriate (removing a channel entirely rather than clearing or muting it). However, there is no statement of prerequisites, no confirmation/irreversibility warning, and no pointer to alternatives such as clear_notes for narrower cleanup.

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