discord_switch_channel

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that this is a client-side UI state change ('active channel view in your Discord desktop client') rather than a server data mutation, which is the key trait. It says nothing about failure modes if the desktop client isn't running, whether the change is reversible, or whether it has any side effects such as marking a channel read.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Minor redundancy between 'target channel' and the channel_id parameter, but nothing that wastes meaningful space.

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 simple 2-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the core action adequately. It is thin on the desktop-client dependency and on what the agent should expect on failure or when already viewing that channel, which matters for a UI-affecting operation with no annotations.

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%, with both guild_id (including the '@me' DM convention) and channel_id documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that — it doesn't mention guild_id at all or explain how it interacts with channel_id. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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+resource: switching the active channel view to a target channel. It also disambiguates scope by saying 'in your Discord desktop client,' which separates it from read tools like discord_get_current_channel or discord_list_guild_channels. It stops short of naming a sibling explicitly, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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 usage is implied by 'switch the active channel view' — the agent can infer this is for changing the user's UI context, not for reading messages. But there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of prerequisites such as a running desktop client, nor a named alternative for merely inspecting a channel (discord_get_channel_info).

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