Lock channel

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds behavioral context: 'denying everyone the ability to send messages' and 'Existing role overwrites that allow posting still apply, so moderators keep access.' This goes beyond annotations and explains edge cases.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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?

Given no output schema and a simple tool, the description covers the main effect, exception (role overwrites), and reversal. However, it lacks details on the response or whether confirmation is needed.

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?

The input schema has 67% description coverage (2 of 3 parameters described). The tool description adds no parameter-specific information. The 'reason' parameter lacks a description in both schema and tool description, leaving ambiguity about its purpose (audit log?).

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 'Lock a channel by denying everyone the ability to send messages.' It specifies the verb (lock), resource (channel), and mechanism (deny send messages), distinguishing it from siblings like 'unlock_channel' and other permission tools.

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 explicitly mentions the reverse action ('Reverse with unlock_channel') and clarifies that moderators retain access due to existing role overwrites. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus alternatives like 'set_channel_permissions'.

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