channels_delete_permissions

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the annotations: it explains the return format (`{deleted, channel_id, overwrite_id}`) and the idempotent behavior of treating non-existent overwrites as success, which aligns with `idempotentHint=true`. It does not mention auth requirements, but the annotations already cover safety (`readOnlyHint=false`, `destructiveHint=false`). No contradiction found.

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 sections (Purpose, When to use, When NOT to use, Returns) and every sentence provides necessary information without redundancy. It is concise and front-loaded with the main purpose.

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 relatively simple delete operation, the description covers purpose, usage boundaries, return behavior, and edge-case handling. The input schema is fully documented, and the output schema exists. The description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 does not add significant new meaning to the parameters beyond the schema, though the return format indirectly clarifies `channel_id` and `overwrite_id`. This is acceptable given the schema's completeness.

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 a permission overwrite from a channel.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the 'When NOT to use' section explicitly distinguishes it from the sibling tool `channels_modify_permissions`, so there is no ambiguity about its purpose.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance ('Revert a channel back to inheriting role/category defaults') and when-not-to-use guidance ('Changing allow/deny bits → use `channels_modify_permissions`'), including a named alternative. This fully clarifies usage context.

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