Update Channel

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description should clarify blast radius, yet it says nothing about whether this is a partial patch or a full replacement of the channel config, or whether omitted fields are cleared. It also omits permission requirements and the fact that a bad webhook URL could silently break alerting.

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?

It is short, but brevity here is under-specification rather than economy; a four-word sentence that leaves a destructive mutation undefined fails the requirement that every sentence earn its place by conveying necessary information.

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, open-world mutation with six parameters, a nested object body, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description provides nothing an agent needs to invoke it safely or 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 only 17% schema description coverage across six parameters (including a nested requestBody), the description must compensate and instead mentions zero parameters. Fields like enabled, name, and route-to-channel semantics receive no explanation beyond the terse schema strings for url and routingKey.

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?

"Change a notification channel" supplies a verb and a resource, but "change" is vague about what aspect is modified and the phrase gives no hint of what a channel contains (url, name, enabled, routingKey). It does nothing to distinguish this from the sibling tools listChannels, createChannel, deleteChannel, or testChannel.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all: no mention of editing an existing channel versus creating one, no prerequisites, and no pointer to testChannel for verification. An agent must infer everything about selection from the name alone.

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