update_channel

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Update an existing sales channel' and omits details about required permissions, reversibility, partial/full update semantics, or response behavior. This is similar to the 'update_drive' case, which scored 2.

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 five-word sentence with no filler or redundant information. It is immediately readable and 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?

The schema fully documents the parameters, but the description does not elaborate on update behavior (e.g., whether omitted fields are unchanged or reset), prerequisites, or expected effects. It is minimally viable for a CRUD update tool but leaves gaps that could confuse an agent choosing or invoking it.

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% and all five parameters have individual descriptions, so the schema already provides parameter semantics. The description adds only the contextual hint that the target must already exist ('existing'), which is a minor addition beyond the schema.

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 ('Update') and resource ('sales channel'), and the word 'existing' distinguishes it from create/get/delete operations on the same resource. It clearly identifies the intended action.

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?

No explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_channel, get_channel, or delete_channel. The word 'existing' implies it is for modifying already-created channels, but no clear usage conditions or exclusions are stated.

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