edit_channel

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing: not whether the edit is partial (omitted fields left unchanged), what permissions are required, whether changes are reversible, or how the audit-log 'reason' interacts with the operation. For a 10-parameter mutation tool this is a significant gap.

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 efficient sentence with the resource front-loaded and no filler. It is appropriately sized, though at the cost of leaving out any behavioral context.

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?

A 10-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema needs the description to explain permissions, partial-update semantics, and side effects; instead it offers one sentence. The schema alone cannot tell an agent whether unspecified fields are preserved or cleared.

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 the baseline is 3. The phrase 'text, voice, or stage channel' is the only added meaning, implicitly telling the agent which of the type-specific fields (topic vs. bitrate/userLimit) apply to which channel kind.

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?

States a specific verb (edit) and resource (channel), and narrows the scope to text, voice, or stage channels. However, it never distinguishes itself from close siblings like edit_forum_channel, edit_category, or move_channel, which an agent could easily confuse it with given a 100+ tool list.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., Manage Channels permission), and no routing to alternatives such as move_channel for repositioning or edit_forum_channel for forum channels. The agent must infer all of this from the schema.

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