delete_channel

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds valuable context: it deletes categories/sections, is irreversible, and hints that workspace IDs come from list_workspaces. This goes beyond annotations without contradicting them.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded with the core purpose and irreversibility. The parameter hint is separate and clear. No wasted words.

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 scope of deletion (categories/sections) and irreversibility, which is good for a destructive tool. However, it lacks an explanation for channel_id and does not mention any prerequisites or permissions, though the output schema may cover return values.

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 explain parameters. It only explains workspace_id (with a source hint) but omits any explanation for channel_id, leaving one of two required parameters undocumented.

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 tool permanently deletes a channel and all its categories/sections, which is specific and differentiates it from archive_channel (reversible) and delete_category/delete_section (which target sub-elements). The irreversibility is emphasized.

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 irreversibility implies a distinction from archive_channel, but the description does not explicitly name alternatives or state when to choose this over archiving. It only provides a hint for obtaining workspace IDs, not usage conditions.

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