Modify a Discord channel's name, topic, or category within a Veilleur server plan, enabling review and rollback before execution.
APERÇU. Modifier un salon. Pour vider un sujet ou détacher une catégorie, utiliser preparer_plan avec topic vide ou parent_id null.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| nom | No | ||
| sujet | No | ||
| salon_id | Yes | ||
| categorie_id | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet "APERÇU" is never defined — an agent cannot tell whether this applies changes, stages them, or merely previews. Nothing is said about permissions required on the salon, whether the change is reversible, or whether it is visible to members, which is a serious gap 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?
Three short sentences with the mode marker and action front-loaded, then the escape hatch. Nothing is padded, though the terse fragment style leaves the preview semantics unexplained rather than crisp.
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 4-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema and zero parameter documentation, the description is far too thin. An agent still cannot answer whether calling it mutates state, what permissions it needs, or what nom and salon_id mean — all of which must come from the description here.
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 0% and the schema supplies only bare titles, so the description must compensate. It obliquely references sujet and the categorie detach case via parent_id, but never explains nom or salon_id, nor the semantics of an empty-string value versus an omitted one for a patch-style update.
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?
"Modifier un salon" names a specific verb and resource, and the sibling set (creer_salon, supprimer_salon, modifier_role) makes the modification role unambiguous. The leading token "APERÇU" hints at a preview mode without ever explaining what it means, which is the one blur on an otherwise clear purpose.
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 routes a non-obvious edge case to an alternative tool: to empty a topic or detach a category, use preparer_plan with an empty topic or null parent_id. That is real when-to-use guidance, but it covers only that narrow case — there is no statement of general prerequisites, what happens with the other parameters, or when this should be preferred over the plan/execute siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.