Update a channel's title / description / visibility

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses two important behaviors: partial updates (only passed fields are changed) and clearing the description via an empty string. However, it omits other details such as authentication requirements, error handling, or return values, which would be expected for a mutation tool.

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 two concise sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action and follows with the key behavioral rules, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 relatively simple update tool, the description covers the essential operation, partial-update behavior, and description clearing. No output schema or annotations are present, but the description is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. Missing error/return details are minor in this context.

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 coverage is only 50% (description and channel_slug have descriptions). The description compensates by explaining the partial-update semantics for all parameters and adding Markdown/clear behavior for description. It also mentions visibility explicitly, and the schema provides an enum for allowed values, so the additional semantics are valuable.

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 clearly states the action ('Update an existing board (channel)') and specifies the exact mutable fields (title, description Markdown, visibility). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_channel and get_channel, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly says 'existing board (channel)', implying it is for updates, not creation. The partial-update note ('Only the fields you pass are modified') provides clear context for when to use this over create_channel. It does not name alternative tools, but the context is sufficient for an agent to select it correctly.

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