update_channel

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

The description goes well beyond annotations by revealing that changes affect live campaigns/autopilot runs, that disabling silently stops delivery, that enabling without credentials will not work, that the call is idempotent, and that an API key is required. These are valuable behavioral details not present in the annotation object.

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 compact yet information-dense, with a clear opening line followed by consequence warnings, usage guidance, idempotence note, and auth requirement. Each sentence earns its place without redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 two-parameter toggle tool with no output schema, the description is fully sufficient: it covers side effects, prerequisites, per-call limitations, idempotence, and authentication. The agent has everything needed to decide when and how to invoke it safely.

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 100% and both parameters already have clear descriptions. The description adds useful behavioral context for the 'enabled' parameter (e.g., idempotence, credential caveat) and emphasizes one-channel-per-call, slightly enriching the semantics beyond the schema.

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 begins with a specific action and scope: 'Turn one outreach channel on or off — WhatsApp, SMS or push.' It clearly identifies the resource and behavior, and it distinguishes this mutation tool from the sibling read-only tool get_channels_status.

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 provides explicit usage direction: 'Call get_channels_status first to see where things stand.' It also clarifies scope ('Handles one channel per call') and warns that disabling channels affects live campaigns, giving the agent clear context for when and how to use the tool.

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