clickup_chat_channel_delete

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes the tool's destructive, irreversible, and cascading nature, specifies the impact ('the channel vanishes from the workspace for all members'), and mentions the return value ('Returns an empty object on success'). This covers key behavioral traits like consequences, scope, and output.

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 front-loaded with the core action and impact, uses efficient language, and every sentence adds critical information (destructive nature, user confirmation requirement, workspace impact, return value). There is no wasted text, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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?

Given the tool's high complexity (destructive deletion with cascading effects) and the absence of annotations and output schema, the description provides complete context: it explains the action, behavioral traits (destructive, irreversible, cascading), user interaction requirement, workspace impact, and return value. This compensates well for the lack of structured fields.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (channel_id and team_id) with clear descriptions. The tool description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, such as format examples or additional constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 specific action ('permanently delete'), resource ('ClickUp Chat channel'), and scope ('along with every message and reply it contains'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like clickup_chat_channel_update or clickup_chat_message_delete. It explicitly mentions the destructive nature, which helps differentiate it from less severe operations.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('confirm with the user before calling') and implies when not to use it (for non-destructive operations, as indicated by 'destructive, irreversible, and cascading'). It distinguishes this from alternatives like clickup_chat_channel_update for modifications or clickup_chat_channel_list for viewing, though it doesn't name specific alternatives.

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