Edit Discord Channel

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

Annotations indicate idempotentHint=true (repeatable) and destructiveHint=false, which the description implicitly supports. It adds critical behavioral context: 'WARNING: This REPLACES all existing tags! To keep existing tags, first use discord_get_channel...' This disclosure goes beyond the schema and annotations, though other side effects (e.g., permission requirements, channel type constraints) are not mentioned.

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 well-structured with clear 'Args' and 'Returns' sections. The first sentence establishes purpose immediately. While the available_tags section is verbose, it is justified given the complexity of that parameter. Overall, it is appropriately sized and front-loaded.

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 adequately covers the tool's behavior given the rich schema (100% parameter coverage) and annotations. However, without an output schema, the return value is vaguely described as 'Updated channel details.' It lacks guidance on which parameters apply to which channel types (e.g., bitrate only for voice) and does not mention error handling or validation constraints beyond schema.

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% with clear descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds substantial value beyond the schema by explaining nuanced usage, such as 'use 'none' to remove' on parent_id and default_reaction_emoji, and the detailed warning about tag replacement with sub-property explanations. This compensates for the baseline.

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 clearly states 'Edit a channel's properties including name, topic, category, position, and more.' This uses a specific verb ('Edit') and resource ('channel's properties'), and lists concrete examples. It differentiates from sibling edit tools like discord_edit_message or discord_edit_role by focusing on channel properties.

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 only lists parameters but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention situations where editing channel properties is appropriate versus using other tools like discord_set_channel_permissions or discord_move_member. No explicit when/when-not reasoning is given.

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