Delete Channel Episode

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes beyond that with real added context: the required token scope, the delegate_to_contact authorization model, the mandatory confirm=true flag, and the warning that the operation may share access, notify people, or incur provider charges. It still doesn't say whether the deletion is reversible or soft-deleted.

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 opening sentence is front-loaded and clear, but the permissions section uses a code block and parenthetical scope names that add bulk for relatively little agent-facing value. It is not wasteful enough to be penalized heavily, but it is longer than the core instruction warrants.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers auth and confirmation well but leaves the key operational question unanswered: whether the deletion is permanent or recoverable, especially given siblings like list_deleted_media and restore_deleted_media exist. Adequate but with a clear gap.

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, giving a baseline of 3. The description restates the confirm=true requirement but adds no new syntax or meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 an existing channel episode'), which is specific enough to separate it from delete_channel, delete_webinar and delete_review_bundle in the sibling list. The trailing 'in a channel' adds no real information, and no sibling is named as an alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

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 invocation prerequisites (an api token with read/update/delete permission, confirm=true) but never says when to use this tool versus alternatives like un_publish_channel_episode or delete_channel. Usage is implied by the name rather than explained.

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