Disconnect a channel

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by naming exactly what is destroyed: the Google OAuth grant is revoked and the local token is deleted, and it warns that explicit confirmation is mandatory. It leaves minor gaps, such as whether revocation affects other channels sharing the same Google account.

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 tightly constructed sentences with the destructive effect front-loaded and the confirmation constraint second. Every phrase earns its place and nothing is redundant padding.

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 values need not be explained, and the annotations cover idempotency and destructive behavior. The description states both effects of the operation and the confirmation gate, which is sufficient for correct invocation. It could go further on partial-failure behavior or shared-account side effects for a destructive, open-world operation.

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 coverage is 100% and the confirm parameter already carries the instruction 'Must be true. Ask the user to confirm before setting it,' which is the key semantic. The description's 'Requires explicit confirmation' reinforces that gate but adds no new information about channel_id or the confirm flow, so the schema is doing the heavy lifting.

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 gives a specific verb pair and resource: 'Revoke CreatorOS's Google access for a channel and delete its local token.' This clearly identifies it as the inverse of youtube_connect_channel and distinguishes it from read-only siblings like youtube_list_channels. It does not explicitly name the sibling it complements, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied by the inverse relationship to connect_channel and by the stated confirmation requirement, but the description never explicitly says when to prefer this over alternatives or what preconditions exist (e.g., channel must currently be connected). 'Requires explicit confirmation' is an invocation instruction rather than tool-selection guidance.

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