update_organization_channel

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

Adds behavioral detail beyond annotations by describing the conflict failure scenario. Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true and non-destructive nature, and description supplements with specific edge case.

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?

Three short sentences: one for purpose, one for identification, one for conflict behavior. No wasted words, highly efficient.

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?

Covers identification, update options, and conflict error. With output schema present, return details are likely covered there. Lacks mention of permissions or explicit output, but overall adequate for a mutation tool with good 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 coverage is 100% but descriptions are minimal. The description adds meaningful semantics on how to use parameters (e.g., exactly one locator, newProvider/newValue usage) that go beyond the schema.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'Update' and resource 'one contact channel on an organization', differentiating it from sibling tools like add_organization_channel and remove_organization_channel. It specifies identification logic and constraints.

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 clear context on how to identify the channel (exactly one locator) and conflict behavior when updating to an existing provider+value. While it does not explicitly list alternatives, the constraints effectively guide when to use this tool.

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