clear_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 of disclosing behavior. It clearly states the destructive action and the channel scope, and it explains that providing an app limits deletion to that app's messages. The impact of the optional test_id parameter is not disclosed, which keeps this 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?

The description is only two sentences: the first gives the action and purpose, and the second clarifies app scoping. Every word earns its place, and there is no repetition of the schema.

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 description covers the core destructive behavior and the app scope, but it does not explain the optional test_id parameter or explicitly contrast the tool with clear_all. With no annotations and no output schea, this leaves some decision-making information missing for an agent.

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%, so the description must add parameter meaning. It clarifies that channel is the target channel and that app acts as a filter, but it does not explain test_id at all. This is a notable gap given the schema provides no descriptions.

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 specifies a clear verb ('Delete'), a precise resource ('all captured messages of a channel'), and an intended use case ('cleanup between test runs'). This makes it easy to distinguish from the sibling clear_all, which appears to operate at a broader scope.

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 phrase 'cleanup between test runs' gives an explicit context in which the tool should be used. It does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the channel-scoped cleanup purpose is clear enough to guide selection.

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