cigchat_workspace_settings_update_channels

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the POST method and required scope, but it does not explain effects on omitted parameters (whether they retain previous values or get hidden), nor does it describe the response. The behavior is implied by 'Show/Hide' and the schema, but significant ambiguity remains.

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 a single, efficient sentence that includes the action, endpoint, and a key requirement. No wasted words; every element earns its place.

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?

Despite having a rich schema, the description lacks critical operational details for a mutation tool with 18 optional parameters. It does not clarify whether omitting a parameter preserves the current setting or resets it, nor is there any explanation of the overall effect or response. This is a significant gap for safe 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 100%, with each parameter clearly documenting '1 to show, 0 to hide'. The description itself adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, matching the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 action (Show/Hide workspace Channels) and identifies the specific resource via the HTTP endpoint. It is distinct from siblings like cigchat_workspace_settings_channels, which appears to be a read-only counterpart.

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 provides a clear prerequisite (requires 'Manage Team' scope) and an HTTP method, giving some usage context. However, it does not explicitly compare with alternative tools (e.g., cigchat_workspace_settings_channels for reading current settings) or state when this update tool should be preferred.

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