discord_edit_channel

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

Annotations establish the mutation/safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), so the bar is lower. The description adds the real value: required permissions and the thread/channel distinction for archive/lock. It does not describe reversibility or return behavior, but the auth context is a meaningful addition.

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?

Two tight sentences: the action and field list are front-loaded, and the permission requirement follows. No filler and every clause carries 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 10-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, editable fields, thread-specific caveats, and permissions. It leaves a few parameters and the partial-update/return behavior unaddressed, but no output schema means return values need not be explained.

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%, with several params (name, nsfw, topic, position, slowmode_seconds) lacking schema descriptions. The description compensates by naming the editable properties (rename, topic, move, slowmode, archive, lock), giving semantic orientation. It omits nsfw, position, and auto_archive_minutes, so it does not fully close the coverage gap.

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 (Edit) and resource (channel or thread), then enumerates the mutable fields (rename, topic, move, slowmode; archive/lock for threads). This clearly separates it from siblings like discord_create_channel, discord_delete_channel, and discord_set_channel_permission without needing to open any 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 the operative prerequisite (Manage Channels, or Manage Threads for threads) and notes thread-only operations, which tells the agent when the call will succeed. It stops short of explicitly naming alternative tools for non-edit operations, but the context is clear enough for invocation.

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