Disconnect a channel

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description goes beyond them by disclosing the side effect of revoking the app's Google OAuth access and by stating the user-confirmation requirement, which explains the confirmation_token flow. It does not say what happens to already-uploaded content or whether reconnection is required afterward.

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, front-loaded with the action and consequence, followed by the single gating requirement. No filler whatsoever.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema and rich annotations, the description covers action, consequence, and the confirmation gate. Missing only post-state details such as what happens to existing uploads or whether the user must re-authenticate.

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 100%, so both 'channel' (ID/@handle/name, omit for default) and 'confirmation_token' (returned by prior identical call) are fully documented in the schema. The description only echoes the confirmation requirement without adding format details, so baseline 3 applies.

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 specific verb+resource ('Remove a connected channel') and adds the consequence of revoking the app's Google access, which separates it from siblings like get_channel, update_channel, and list_channels. It stops short of naming an alternative explicitly, but the destructive scope is unmistakable.

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?

'Needs the user's confirmation' gives one clear prerequisite for invocation, which is useful guidance. However, there is no explicit when-not guidance (e.g., use set_default_channel or update_channel if you only want to change settings) and no mention of what to do if the channel is the default or currently connected for uploads.

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