delete_channel

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the auth requirement, the token revocation, the visibility change in list_channels, the fact that the DB file survives on disk for audit, and the irreversible name non-reuse rule. These are exactly the side effects an agent must know before invoking a destructive operation.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the admin precondition, then consequences, then the disk-cleanup caveat. Every clause carries information; nothing is redundant.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is unnecessary. Given a one-param destructive tool with no annotations, the description covers prerequisites, side effects, persistence, and irreversibility — everything needed to call it correctly and safely.

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?

There is one parameter ('name') with 0% schema description coverage, so the schema offers nothing. The description implies the parameter identifies the channel and adds a meaningful property ('the name cannot be reused'), but never explicitly defines what the 'name' argument is or its format, leaving a small gap for a single required param.

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 ('deactivate a channel') and immediately enumerates the concrete effects (revokes tokens, hides from list_channels), which is far more precise than the tool name alone. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like create_channel, list_channels, or rotate_token.

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 a hard precondition — 'ADMIN ONLY (HTTP transport)' — and briefly notes the manual file-removal alternative if data must truly be purged. It does not, however, contrast this tool with sibling operations such as rotate_token or list_channels, so the when-to-use among alternatives is only partially covered.

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