discord_upsert_channel

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

No annotations exist, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It only says 'create or modify' without disclosing critical behaviors such as the default dryRun=true, the role of channelId in distinguishing create vs update, permission requirements, or how invalid fields are handled. This leaves the agent without essential safety or operational context.

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 a single, unfussy sentence that gets to the point with no wasted words. However, it is so brief that it omits valuable context that could be added without bloat, such as the create-vs-update distinction or the dryRun default, so it is not maximally effective.

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?

The tool is complex (free-form body, optional channelId, dryRun, reason) but has no schema descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema. The description provides only the basic purpose and does not explain the upsert semantics, parameter roles, or return behavior, making it insufficient for correct invocation.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate, but it only vaguely references 'Discord API fields' for the body parameter. It gives no explanation of guildId, channelId, dryRun, or reason, nor how they affect the operation. For a tool with five parameters, this is critically insufficient.

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 the tool creates or modifies Discord channels, listing eight channel types (guild, category, forum, media, stage, voice, announcement). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that delete, reorder, or set permissions on channels. However, the phrase 'using Discord API fields' is somewhat vague, and 'any' may overstate the supported set.

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 this is the go-to tool for channel creation/update but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like discord_raw_guild_request or discord_delete_channel. It mentions no exclusions, prerequisites, or recommended contexts beyond the basic purpose.

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