channels_terminate

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the danger profile is known, and the description goes beyond them by (a) naming the concrete effect — logout with the pairing dropped — and (b) imposing a mandatory user-confirmation workflow before invocation. It still does not say whether the action is reversible or how to re-pair afterwards.

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?

Short and front-loaded: the effect is in the first clause, the safety instruction second, transport details bracketed last. The middle sentence is slightly generic boilerplate ("Reaches other people... deletes, or redirects data") but costs little.

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?

For a one-parameter destructive mutation with no output schema, the description adequately covers effect and the confirmation requirement but omits the parameter's meaning, reversibility, and any post-termination state (e.g., whether the channel must be re-created).

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?

There is one required parameter, `id`, with 0% schema description coverage — only an opaque example string. The description never says what the id identifies (channel id vs. session id) or how to obtain it, so it does not compensate for the schema's silence.

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?

States a concrete verb and resource ("Log the channel out of the platform") plus the key consequence ("pairing is dropped"), so an agent knows this is a logout/teardown action rather than a rename or restart. It does not differentiate itself from the close siblings channels_unload, channels_delete, or channels_restart, which matters given how similar those names are.

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?

It gives one real usage instruction: state exactly what will happen and obtain the user's confirmation before calling. That is a prerequisite, not a when-to-use-vs-alternatives rule; nothing tells the agent when to pick terminate rather than unload, delete, or restart.

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