nvr_remove_channel

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so richly: it declares DESTRUCTIVE, the required env flag, the boolean-strict confirm_write gate, the optimistic-concurrency expected_uuid check, the online=='1' refusal with a force override, dry-run support, and the before/after return shape.

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?

Front-loaded with the verb and DESTRUCTIVE warning, then prerequisites and edge-case behavior in terse, high-density sentences. No filler; every clause conveys a constraint or behavior.

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 mutation with zero annotations, it covers prerequisites, refusal conditions, override, dry-run, backup recommendation, and return shape; the presence of an output schema means return values need no further explanation. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it safely is missing.

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 only 25% (only confirm_write documented), so the description must compensate: it explains expected_uuid semantics (must equal the live row's uuid) and force (bypass the connected-camera refusal), plus channel_id's role as the target row. This is strong added meaning, though it doesn't restate the confirm_write type nuance the schema already covers.

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 ('Unbind one channel') and even names the underlying method (chm_del_dev), which lets an agent distinguish it from siblings like nvr_move_channel or nvr_plan_channel_cleanup without opening a schema.

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?

Gives clear operational context: run nvr_backup_config first, when force=true is required (connected camera), and the write-enable prerequisites. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with the alternative cleanup/move tools, so no explicit when-not guidance, but the usage conditions are concrete.

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