Delete Teams Channel

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the destructive action ('Delete') but does not disclose irreversibility, permission requirements, or side effects. This is a significant gap for a destructive operation.

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 extremely short and front-loaded with the core English phrase. The Chinese translations add minor redundancy but are not excessive, making it still concise and focused.

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?

With no output schema and a simple delete operation, the description could explain the result of deletion, error scenarios, or whether it is permanent. It does none of this, leaving the agent to infer the full behavioral context from the tool name alone.

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%, so the parameters teamId and channelId are already fully documented. The description adds no additional semantic value beyond what the schema provides, which aligns with the baseline of 3.

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 states 'Delete a Microsoft Teams channel' with a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like teams_create_channel or teams_update_channel. The additional Chinese intent translations reinforce the meaning without adding ambiguity.

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 deletion action, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any mention of prerequisites or exclusions. It does not name alternative tools for similar operations.

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