Delete Channel Collaborator

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=false. The description adds valuable auth context (required token permissions, delegated token behavior) and a side-effect warning about sharing access, notifying people, or incurring provider charges. It does not describe reversibility or what happens to the collaborator's other access, but it goes beyond the annotations.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the permission details, while lengthy, are relevant to a destructive mutation. The structure is logical and no clearly extraneous sentences appear, though the auth block could be tightened.

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, open-world deletion with no output schema, the description covers auth requirements, the confirm gate, and side effects. It lacks details on post-deletion state or re-invite behavior, but the annotations and schema provide the safety profile. It is complete enough for correct invocation.

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 four parameters are already documented in the schema. The description repeats the confirm=true requirement and adds no new syntax or semantics for id, account, or channel_hashed_id. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the parameter detail.

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: 'Removes a collaborator's access to a channel.' The resource is clearly a channel collaborator, distinguishing it from siblings like delete_channel or delete_webinar_collaborator. No ambiguity about what is being deleted.

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?

Provides prerequisite permission scopes and the confirm=true gate, but does not state when to choose this tool over alternatives such as delete_channel, update_channel, or create_channel_collaborator. Usage is implied by the tool name and resource, but no explicit when-not or alternative routing is given.

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