discord_delete_channel

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action is a deletion, implying it's destructive and irreversible, but doesn't elaborate on consequences (e.g., data loss, impact on server structure) or requirements (e.g., admin permissions, rate limits). The mention of an 'optional reason' adds minor context about audit trails but lacks depth on behavioral traits.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Deletes a Discord channel') and adds a useful detail ('with an optional reason'). There is no wasted verbiage, and it's appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it could benefit from slightly more structure for clarity.

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 tool's complexity (destructive operation with 2 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover critical aspects like permissions, irreversible effects, error handling, or return values. For a deletion tool in a collaborative platform like Discord, this leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to operate safely and effectively.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It only mentions the 'reason' parameter as optional, without explaining the 'channelId' parameter (e.g., format, how to obtain it) or providing examples. This adds minimal semantic value beyond the bare schema, failing to address the coverage gap adequately.

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 ('Deletes') and resource ('a Discord channel'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like discord_delete_category or discord_delete_message by specifying the target resource. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other deletion tools beyond naming the resource.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., permissions needed), when not to use it (e.g., irreversible action), or refer to sibling tools like discord_delete_category for related operations. The optional 'reason' parameter hints at audit logging but doesn't clarify usage context.

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