delete_channel

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly warns that the operation is 'genuinely destructive and irreversible' and explains the write-gate requirement (DISCORD_MCP_ENABLE_WRITE=1). This goes beyond the schema and provides critical safety context, though it does not detail failure modes or permission requirements.

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 front-loaded sentence. It packs the essential information (what it does, the destructive nature, and the gating condition) without any redundant or tangential content. Every word earns its place.

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 tool is simple (one parameter), and an output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. The description covers the most critical contextual aspect—irreversibility—and the write gate requirement. However, it omits details like error cases or permission needs, which might be expected for a destructive write operation. Overall, it is adequate but not exhaustive.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does not explicitly explain 'channel_id', but the tool name and phrase 'Delete a channel' make it clear the parameter identifies the channel to delete. For a single obvious parameter, this is minimally sufficient but adds no additional detail about format, constraints, or behavior.

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 tool's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Delete a channel.' It is distinct from sibling tools like create_channel and edit_channel, and no other sibling performs deletion, so there is no ambiguity.

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 implies usage (when you need to delete a channel) but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or comparisons to alternatives. The warning about destructiveness is context but not usage direction. It does not mention exclusions or prerequisites.

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