Delete Channel

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and non-idempotent, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing the confirm gate and concrete side effects (shared access changes, notifications, provider charges), which an agent cannot infer from the annotations alone.

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 immediately followed by the hard requirement. The side-effect sentence is slightly generic but still earns its place by warning about charges and notifications.

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?

With no output schema, the description does not need to describe returns, and annotations cover the read/write and destructiveness profile. It supplies the confirm requirement and side effects, leaving only minor gaps such as irreversibility of the deletion.

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 the schema already documents all three parameters including the confirm flag and hashed id. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, so the 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?

The description opens with a specific verb+resource ("Deletes a channel"), which is unambiguous and clearly distinct from the channel-episode or media deletion siblings. It stops short of explicitly naming which sibling to prefer in a given situation, so it lands at a clear-but-undifferentiated 4.

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 states a prerequisite (confirm=true is required for the mutation), which is genuinely useful invocation guidance. However, there is no when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use framing and no comparison to alternatives such as update_channel, so usage is only implied.

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