update_channel

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral transparency. However, it merely restates the tool name without disclosing any behavioral traits such as permissions required, partial vs full update semantics, side effects, or return value. This is essentially no disclosure.

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 sentence with no wasted words, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently concise. It essentially restates the tool name ('update_channel') and offers no additional substance, making it a minimal placeholder rather than a well-structured description.

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 mutation tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to mention that id is required, whether only provided fields are updated, or any constraints or effects. The schema covers parameter mechanics but not the operational behavior, leaving gaps in contextual completeness.

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 covers all three parameters (id, name, priority) with descriptions and an enum for priority, giving 100% schema description coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning, but the baseline of 3 applies since the schema sufficiently documents each parameter.

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 states a clear verb ('Update') and resource ('an existing channel'), which effectively communicates the tool's purpose. The word 'existing' adds a minor semantic distinction (it does not create channels), though it does not differentiate from sibling 'vast_update_channel' or other channel operations.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_channel, archive_channel, or vast_update_channel. It neither gives context for appropriate use nor excludes other tools, leaving the agent without decision-making information.

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