delete_channel

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the two most important traits: the deletion is permanent/irreversible and user confirmation is required. It stops short of describing side effects (cascade removal of messages/invites), permission requirements, or failure behaviour, which keeps it from a 5.

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 short sentences with zero padding, and the destructive nature is front-loaded ahead of the confirmation instruction. Every clause earns its place.

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 destructive tool with no annotations, no output schema, and undocumented parameters, the description covers the essentials (permanence, confirmation) but omits permission needs, side effects, and what the result looks like. It is adequate to prevent accidental use but not complete enough for confident invocation.

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 0% for two parameters, so the description must compensate, and it does not mention either one. Neither the required channel_id nor the optional reason parameter is explained, leaving the agent to infer their purpose from the bare property names.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource in uppercase emphasis ("APAGA um canal", i.e. deletes a channel) and adds the crucial modifier "permanentemente", so an agent can immediately distinguish it from siblings like edit_channel or list_channels. It does not explicitly name an alternative, which keeps it 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?

It gives one concrete procedural guideline — confirm with the user before calling — which is valuable for a destructive operation. However, it offers no when-not guidance (e.g. to prefer edit_channel or to archive instead) and no mention of required permissions or preconditions such as the channel being empty.

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