Delete Channel

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered without the description. The description adds the confirm=true gate, which is useful, but 'May share access, notify people or incur provider charges' is vague boilerplate with no stated condition, and it never says whether deletion is permanent or what happens to the channel's episodes.

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 the destructive action front-loaded and the precondition attached to it. The second sentence is somewhat generic, but there is no padding or repetition of the title.

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 3-parameter mutation with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient: the action, the confirm gate, and a side-effect warning are present. It is incomplete on the things an agent most needs for a destructive channel operation, namely irreversibility and whether child episodes or collaborators are affected.

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 all three parameters are already documented, including confirm's 'set true only when the user asked for exactly this action' semantics. The description's confirm note restates the schema rather than adding new meaning, so the baseline of 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 and resource ('Deletes a channel'), which cleanly separates it from read siblings like get_channel, list_channels and update_channel. It does not explicitly name adjacent destructive siblings (delete_channel_episode, delete_channel_collaborator), so it stops just short of full sibling differentiation.

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 gives one concrete precondition ('Requires confirm=true'), which implies when the tool may be called, but it offers no when-not guidance and no routing to alternative tools. The rest of the sentence is provider-boilerplate that does not help select this tool over siblings.

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