Deletes a notification channel and removes it as a destination for any triggers or escalation levels that reference it.
Delete a notification channel. Triggers and escalation levels pointing at it lose that destination.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Channel ID to delete |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.10.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With zero annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose a real side effect: triggers and escalation levels pointing at the channel lose that destination. However, it does not state whether the deletion is permanent, what happens to those dependents afterward (silently broken vs blocked), required permissions, or failure behavior when the channel is in active use.
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?
Two short sentences, action first and consequence second, with no filler. Every sentence carries information an agent cannot get from the name alone.
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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and the downstream blast radius, which is the most important thing. It falls short on the destructive-operation essentials — irreversibility and failure modes — which are especially needed since no destructiveHint annotation exists to flag the risk.
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% and the single required 'id' parameter is documented in the schema as 'Channel ID to delete'. The description adds no format or sourcing guidance 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+resource ('Delete a notification channel') that cleanly separates it from sibling deletes like delete_trigger and delete_escalation_policy. It does not explicitly name those siblings or when to choose one over another, but the resource noun carries the differentiation.
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?
There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives such as update_channel or deactivating a route, and no prerequisite or confirmation advice. The only implied usage is the obvious 'call it to delete a channel', which the name already conveys.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.