update_channel

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false (mutation), destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description reinforces that this is a safe, non-destructive update by stating 'Only provided fields are modified.' This adds clarity beyond annotations by specifying partial update semantics.

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 concise sentences: the first states purpose, the second adds critical nuance about partial updates. No unnecessary words or redundancy. Every sentence adds value.

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 update tool with no nested objects and full schema coverage, the description adequately covers the core behavior. It mentions 'existing channel' and partial update. Could optionally state that unprovided fields remain unchanged (implied) or that a successful update returns nothing (no output schema), but current level is sufficient.

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% (all parameters described in schema). The description does not add new meaning beyond the schema for individual parameters; it only generically mentions 'fields'. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as 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?

The description clearly states the tool updates fields on an existing Huly channel, using specific verb 'update' and resource 'channel'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_channel (creates) and delete_channel (deletes) by focusing on modification of existing records.

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 mentions only provided fields are modified, implying partial update behavior. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., when to use create_channel vs update_channel), nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites beyond needing an existing channel.

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