remove_tracked_channel

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

With no annotations, the description fully bears the responsibility. It discloses no-op behavior, persistence of last-seen state, and details of the return value including the 'user_facing_message' field, which is essential for correct agent behavior.

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 well-structured with clear sections for Args and Returns, and the critical usage instruction is front-loaded. It is somewhat verbose but each part adds value, earning a high score.

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?

Despite the tool's simplicity, the description covers all relevant aspects: what the tool does, when it is a no-op, what happens to state, and the exact return format including the 'user_facing_message' for agent usage. No output schema exists, but the description compensates fully.

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?

The single parameter 'channel_id' is described as 'YouTube channel ID', adding minimal context beyond the schema's type and title. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description compensates only slightly; the parameter is straightforward, so a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 removes a channel from the registry, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'add_tracked_channel' which performs the opposite action.

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 explicitly warns that the tool must be called to avoid silently wrong state, and explains that it is a no-op if the channel was not tracked. It also clarifies that it does not clear last-seen state, guiding appropriate usage.

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