Remove Channel Agent Route

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

Annotations already communicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description does not need to restate these. However, it adds no extra behavioral context, such as what exactly happens to the route, whether the operation is reversible, or any access requirements.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence communicates the core action without waste. Every word contributes to understanding, making it appropriately concise for a straightforward removal operation.

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 tool is simple with two well-documented parameters and rich annotations covering destructiveness and idempotency. The description covers the core behavior sufficiently, though it leaves some ambiguity about what an 'agent route' is and what happens after removal.

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 input schema fully describes both required parameters (channel_id and agent_id) with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, but none is needed given the schema is complete and self-explanatory.

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 uses the specific verb 'remove' and names the resource 'agent route from a channel', which is unambiguous. It clearly distinguishes from the sibling 'lyzr_add_channel_agent_route' and related channel management tools.

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 implicitly tells when to use this tool: whenever an agent route must be removed from a channel. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state prerequisites, such as verifying the route exists or using the add tool for the reverse operation.

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