channels_modify

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

Annotations already include readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that only provided fields are updated, that Discord ignores non-applicable fields, and the return shape. This extends beyond annotations without contradiction.

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?

Well-structured with Markdown headers and bullets. Every sentence adds value: purpose, usage, exclusions, field behavior, and return value. No redundant or filler content.

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?

Given 21 parameters, an output schema, and rich annotations, the description covers the core behavior, usage boundaries, and return value. It lacks permission requirements and error scenarios, but these are not essential for tool selection and 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?

Schema description coverage is low (24%), and the description does not individually explain each parameter. However, it does add the crucial general semantics of partial updates and field applicability, which partially compensates for the schema gaps.

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 'Update an existing channel's settings' with a specific verb and resource. It further distinguishes from siblings by explicitly listing 'When NOT to use' with channels_modify_permissions and channels_delete.

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?

Provides a 'When to use' list of concrete scenarios and a 'When NOT to use' with alternative tool names. Also explains field applicability mirrors channels_create_guild_channel, helping the agent know which params apply.

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