Lock channel

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

Annotations already indicate this is a mutating but non-destructive operation. The description adds valuable context by revealing that existing role overwrites can still allow posting, meaning moderators may keep access. It does not cover auth requirements or rate limits, but for this simple mutation the added nuance is useful and goes beyond annotations.

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 three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence earns its place. It efficiently states the purpose, the important caveat about overwrites, and the reverse operation without any fluff.

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 mutation tool with full annotations and a clear schema, the description is complete. It explains the effect, the critical exception (role overwrites), and how to undo it. No output schema exists, so return values are not required, and the description covers all necessary operational context.

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 67%, so guild and channel parameters are sufficiently described in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level details and does not clarify the reason parameter, but the schema gap is minor since 'reason' is self-explanatory. Overall the description provides marginal added value over 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 clearly states the action (lock a channel) and the mechanism (denying everyone the ability to send messages). It also distinguishes this tool from siblings like unlock_channel and set_channel_permissions by specifying the nuance that existing role overwrites still apply.

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 when to use this tool (to lock a channel) and explicitly mentions the reverse operation with unlock_channel, but it does not compare with alternative permission tools like set_channel_permissions or clear_channel_permissions. It gives clear context but no explicit exclusions.

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