system_set_update_channel

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that channel options are panel-dependent and that confirm is required, which is useful behavioral context. But it does not explain the effect of the change, whether it triggers an update, reversibility, permissions, or what happens without confirmation.

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 and front-loaded: one clear purpose sentence followed by a terse argument list. It avoids fluff and every line adds information that the sparse schema lacks (channel values, confirmation requirement).

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?

The description covers the essential call inputs for a simple setter, and an output schema exists so return details are not required. It is incomplete, though, on the operational context: no mention of preconditions, side effects, or the meaning of confirm beyond 'required', and no annotation safety profile to compensate.

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?

Because schema coverage is 0%, the description usefully lists the allowed channel values and flags confirm as required. However, 'confirm: Required' conflicts with the schema, where confirm is optional with a default of false and channel is the only required parameter, making the instruction ambiguous and potentially misleading.

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 first sentence names a specific verb ('Change') and resource ('DirectAdmin update channel'), making the tool's purpose unmistakable. It also enumerates the valid channel values (current/stable/beta/alpha), which distinguishes it from sibling system/update tools like system_update_directadmin.

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?

The description implies the use case: call when the DirectAdmin update channel needs to be changed, and the confirm argument is highlighted. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among the many system/update siblings, so the routing guidance is only implicit.

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