permissions_audit_channel

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

While annotations already declare read-only and idempotent behavior, the description adds significant context: roles are evaluated independently with @everyone, member-specific overwrites are excluded, and thread management uses MANAGE_THREADS. It also clarifies that it audits baselines rather than mutable thread state, providing real behavioral depth beyond annotations.

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 well-structured with bolded section headers (Purpose, When to use, When NOT to use, Returns) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence serves a distinct function—definition, usage context, exclusions, or parameter behavior—with no fluff.

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 tool with moderate complexity, the description covers purpose, usage scenarios, exclusions, parameter effects, and output summary. With output schema and strong annotations present, the description fully complements structured data, leaving no critical gap for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the consequence of omitting `actions` ('audit all three actions') and that selecting fewer actions reduces output, which is a behavioral nuance not fully captured in the schema's enum description.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Audit which individual guild roles can view, send in, or manage one channel or thread.' It clearly defines scope and explicitly contrasts with sibling tool `permissions_explain`, making the tool's unique function unmistakable.

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?

Dedicated 'When to use' and 'When NOT to use' sections provide explicit context and alternatives. It names `permissions_explain` for member-specific access, excludes thread-state prediction, and warns against mutation, giving unambiguous guidance.

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