Set Channel Permissions

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

Annotations already indicate idempotent, non-destructive, read-write behavior. The description adds value by organizing permission names and implying that overrides are set, which aligns with annotations. However, it does not clarify whether existing overrides are replaced or merged, nor mention rate limits or required permissions.

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?

Description is well-structured with clear sections (purpose, permission names, args, returns). The permission name list is lengthy but necessary. The overall length is justified given the complexity, though some redundancy exists between the args list and the schema.

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 purpose and arguments well but provides only vague return information ('Confirmation of permission changes'). No output schema exists, so more detail on the return format would be helpful. It also lacks clarification on behavior when overrides already exist (overwrite vs merge), though idempotent hint suggests replacement.

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?

Input schema covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds significant value by listing common permission names organized by category (View, Messages, Voice, etc.), which helps the agent construct valid 'allow' and 'deny' arrays beyond the schema's brief descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb ('Set') and resource ('permission overrides for a role or member on a channel'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'discord_remove_channel_permissions' or 'discord_sync_channel_permissions'.

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?

While the description lists common permission names to guide input, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'use discord_sync_channel_permissions to copy permissions from another channel'). No exclusions or context on prerequisites are provided.

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