Delete Channel Collaborator

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

The description goes beyond the annotations by disclosing the authorization model (two token types, delegated permissions) and the confirm=true requirement for the mutation, which annotations do not express. It also warns of side effects (shared access, notifications, provider charges), though that closing line reads as generic boilerplate and is vague for a collaborator-removal operation.

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 core action is front-loaded in one sentence, followed by a clearly delimited permission block that is easy to scan. The trailing line about sharing access, notifying people, and incurring charges is boilerplate whose relevance here is unclear and could be trimmed.

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, non-idempotent mutation with a required confirm flag and no output schema, the description supplies the auth profile, the confirmation gate, and the side-effect warning an agent needs before calling. Nothing material to correct invocation is missing.

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 id, account, confirm, and channel_hashed_id are all already documented. The description reinforces the confirm requirement, but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema; 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 and resource ("Removes a collaborator's access to a channel"), which is unambiguous against siblings like create_channel_collaborator and delete_webinar_collaborator. No explicit sibling routing, but the verb+resource pair is precise enough to select correctly.

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?

Gives clear prerequisites (required permission sets, the delegation scope, and the confirm=true gate for the mutation), which tells the agent the conditions under which the call will succeed. It never names an alternative tool or a when-not scenario, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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