giveaways_deletePermanently remove a giveaway from a StreamElements channel using its 24-character hex ID. Use it to clear ended or unwanted giveaways so they no longer appear.
Permanently delete a giveaway.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| channel | No | StreamElements channel id (24-char hex). Defaults to SE_CHANNEL_ID or the channel that owns the token. | |
| giveawayId | Yes | Giveaway id (24-character hex id) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. 'Permanently' reinforces irreversibility but adds little beyond destructiveHint, and the description says nothing about side effects (entrants, history) or required permissions.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with zero waste, correctly stating the operation up front. It is arguably terse for a destructive operation, but there is no filler.
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 no output schema, the annotations cover the safety signal and the schema covers parameters, so the minimum is met. However, the description omits what gets destroyed and whether the action is recoverable beyond the single word 'Permanently'.
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% with only two parameters, both documented in the schema (giveawayId format and channel default). The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 (delete) and resource (giveaway), and 'Permanently' clarifies the scope. It implicitly distinguishes itself from the mutation siblings (close, complete, reopen, refund) since only this one removes the giveaway, though it never names that distinction explicitly.
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?
No guidance on when to use deletion versus sibling operations like giveaways_close, giveaways_complete, or giveaways_reopen, and no prerequisites or warnings stated. The agent must infer the choice from the verb alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.