channels_delete

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

The description only states the action without disclosing behavioral traits such as irreversibility, impact on associated messages, or permission requirements. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but provides minimal transparency, which is insufficient for a destructive tool.

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 sentence, which is concise, but it is underspecified and omits critical details. Effective conciseness should include essential guidance without waste; here, the brevity sacrifices completeness.

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 description lacks details on return values (despite an output schema existing) and does not cover prerequisites, effects, or error conditions. For a simple destructive tool, this leaves significant gaps, especially given no annotations to fill them.

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' is not explained in the description. With 0% schema description coverage, the agent has no hint whether 'channel' is an ID, name, or resource path, making correct invocation unreliable.

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 action (Delete) and resource (channel), leaving little ambiguity about the tool's purpose. However, the phrase 'legacy undocumented' adds a caveat that may reduce clarity for agents expecting full documentation.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., archive, close). The description does not mention scenarios, preconditions, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the tool name alone.

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