Update channel

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation nature is already implied. The description adds valuable behavior beyond annotations: only passed fields change, category 'none' removes the category, and dry_run is supported. This gives the agent important side-effect context. However, it doesn't disclose permission requirements or error behavior, which could be useful.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and each sentence contributes new information: the editable fields, the partial-update guarantee, and the dry_run capability. No filler or redundancy.

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?

With 8 parameters, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description covers the main purpose and partial-update behavior but omits details like permission requirements, return value, and exact dry_run semantics. It's adequate but not fully comprehensive for a mutation tool of this complexity.

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 only 38%, with no descriptions for name, topic, slowmode_seconds, nsfw, and dry_run. The description partially compensates by listing the editable fields and noting category 'none'. However, it doesn't explain dry_run's precise semantics or clarify value constraints beyond the schema. Thus it adds modest value but doesn't fully offset the low schema coverage.

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?

Description states 'Edit a channel's name, topic, slowmode, NSFW flag, or category' with a specific verb (Edit) and resource (channel), and enumerates the editable fields. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like create_channel, delete_channel, and update_thread by targeting channel property edits. The partial-update qualification 'Only passed fields change' further clarifies scope.

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 it (to modify channel properties) and provides key usage guidance: only passed fields change, use category 'none' to remove the category, and dry_run support. It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools, but the resource scope is unambiguous. No exclusions or when-not-to-use are stated, so 4 rather than 5.

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