Unlock channel

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

Annotations already indicate non-read-only and non-destructive. The description adds specific behavioral context by naming the exact permission overwrite modified (everyone overwrite) and the action (removing denial), which is valuable beyond annotation hints.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence effectively explains the tool's purpose and action. Every word contributes value, with no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 clear annotations, the description fully covers the tool's behavior without needing an output schema. It states the exact change performed, making it complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 provides descriptions for 'guild' and 'channel' (67% coverage), and the description does not explain parameters further. 'reason' lacks a description, but the described action is simple enough that the schema covers most meaning. No additional parameter semantics are added.

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 'Reverse' with a clear resource ('lock_channel') and explains the mechanism ('removing the send-message denial from the everyone overwrite'). This unambiguously identifies the tool's function and differentiates it from siblings like 'lock_channel'.

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 usage as the counterpart to 'lock_channel'—use when you need to undo a channel lock. It does not explicitly exclude cases or mention alternatives, but the context is clear and sufficient for the tool's simple scope.

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