move_channel_to_category

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: no mention of whether the channel is removed from its previous category, whether the move is idempotent, what permissions are required, or what happens if the category or channel doesn't exist. Only the enumeration of allowed category types (custom, Channels, Favorites) adds context beyond the name.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the action and target come first. It is efficient, though its brevity reflects under-specification rather than tight editing of rich content.

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 simple three-parameter mutation the description covers the core action and the type of destination category, which is enough to attempt a correct call. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the absence of side-effect and failure-mode information leaves it only minimally complete.

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 (team_id, channel_id, category_id) are already documented in the schema, which sets the baseline at 3. The description adds no further meaning about identifier formats, cross-team constraints, or the relationship between team_id and the other IDs.

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 names a specific verb ('Move') and resource ('channel') plus the target ('an existing ... sidebar category'), so the operation is unambiguous. The word 'existing' implicitly separates it from create_channel_category, but no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'existing ... category' hints that a category must already exist (i.e., use list/create_channel_category first), but the description never states when to use this versus reorder_channel_categories or set_channel_favorite, and gives no exclusions or prerequisites.

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