channels_delete

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description adds crucial behavioral context: irreversibility, the ConfirmRequired gate, the __confirm:true requirement, and the MCP_DRY_RUN=false condition for actual deletion. It also states the return shape. This enriches what annotations already convey without contradicting them.

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 well-structured with clear headings (Purpose, When to use, When NOT to use, Returns, Security) and every line adds value. It is compact for a destructive tool and front-loads the critical warning.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema, comprehensive annotations, and sibling context, the description still supplies the necessary operational details: the destructive confirmation flow, dry-run behavior, return value, and an explicit alternative. This is complete for a high-risk mutation tool.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description only reiterates the __confirm behavior that the schema already documents; it adds no new parameter-level semantics. It does not explain audit_reason beyond the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource pair: 'Delete a channel (or close a DM).' It is immediately distinguishable from siblings like channels_modify and channels_delete_permissions because it names the destructive action and notes the alternative for permission hiding.

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?

Contains an explicit 'When to use' section ('tear down stale or compromised channels') and a 'When NOT to use' section that names the exact alternative tool (channels_modify_permissions). This is exactly the kind of decision guidance the rubric calls for.

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