Update a channel

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true), the description discloses the mutation gate and the no-dry-run constraint, so the agent knows a call without confirm returns a preview rather than executing. It omits whether the PATCH on config/secret merges or replaces existing values and whether specific permissions are needed, which are meaningful gaps for a write tool.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with purpose and the endpoint, followed immediately by the write-gating constraint. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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 nested-body mutation with no output schema, the confirm/preview behavior is covered, but the description leaves open how partial updates affect config/secret and what a successful response contains. Adequate to avoid a wrong call, but not complete for a write operation of this shape.

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 only 50% — confirm and idempotencyKey are documented in the schema, but id and the entire nested body (name, config, secret, enabled) are undocumented there. The description adds no meaning about the body fields, no explanation of update/merge semantics for config and secret, and no clarification of the id parameter, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 and resource ('Update a channel') plus the underlying endpoint PATCH /v1/notification-channels/{id}, which pins down exactly which object is mutated among the notifications_* siblings. It does not explicitly contrast with notifications_createChannel or notifications_testChannel, but the verb makes the distinction obvious enough.

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?

Gives a concrete execution rule — the call does nothing unless confirm: true, and there is no server-side dry run — which is real usage guidance. It stops short of telling the agent when to prefer this over siblings like notifications_testChannel or notifications_createChannel, so guidance is implied rather than complete.

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