discord_reset_channel_permissions

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

Annotations already mark the tool as destructive and non-read-only, but the description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond those hints: the operation is IRREVERSIBLE, the cleared overwrites cannot be recovered, and the Manage Roles permission is required. It also discloses the non-resync behavior, which is not captured in the annotations or schema.

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?

Three sentences, each carrying essential information: the action, the critical limitation and alternative, and the irreversibility/permission warning. No filler, and the most important operational detail is front-loaded.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides everything an agent needs to invoke it correctly: the exact effect, a safety warning, the required permission, and a sibling alternative for a related but different operation. The annotations already cover read-only/destructive/idempotent traits, and the schema covers parameters, so no meaningful gap remains.

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 100%, so both channel_id and reason are already documented in the schema. The description does not add new parameter-level detail, which is acceptable given the schema already fully defines the parameters. This matches the baseline for full-schema-coverage tools.

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 and resource ('Remove ALL permission overwrites on a channel') and clarifies the exact scope of the operation — only overwrites are removed, leaving role/server-level permissions intact. It also distinguishes itself from nearby permission tools by explaining what it does not do (resync with the category), making the purpose unmistakable.

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 states when this tool is appropriate (when all overwrites should be removed) and provides a clear exclusion: it does not resync with the category, and names the sibling tool discord_lock_channel_permissions as the alternative for that case. It also gives a prerequisite (Requires the Manage Roles permission), which helps an agent decide whether this is the right tool.

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