Delete Webinar Collaborator

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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, readOnly=false, idempotent=false, and openWorld=true, so the description earns credit for adding auth scope details, the confirm requirement, and possible side effects like sharing access, notifications, or provider charges. The side-effect language is somewhat vague ('May...'), which keeps it from a full 5.

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 description is front-loaded with the core action and structured with a clear permissions section. The permission block is somewhat verbose, and the trailing 'May share access...' sentence is boilerplate, but overall no major waste.

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 mutation with no output schema, the description covers the essential operational context: required permissions, delegated token behavior, confirm=true, and possible side effects. Together with the rich annotations and fully described schema, an agent has what it needs to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful context by explicitly requiring confirm=true for the mutation and framing the removal as producer access. It does not add syntax or format details for webinar_id or id beyond what the schema already documents, so it does not reach 5.

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 producer access to a webinar') with enough precision to distinguish it from create_webinar_collaborator, list_webinar_collaborators, and delete_channel_collaborator. An agent can immediately tell what the tool does without opening the schema.

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 clear preconditions: required API token permissions, delegated token behavior, and the need for confirm=true. It does not explicitly state when-not to use it or name a sibling alternative, but the destructive delete purpose and required confirm make the intended context unambiguous.

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