Lock or unlock a channel (admin)

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is known; the description still adds real value by explaining that roles with their own overrides are unaffected and that unlocking removes only what locking added. That second point is a genuine reversibility guarantee an agent cannot get from the annotations. It does not say whether locking a category cascades to child channels, which is the main remaining behavioral unknown.

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, front-loaded with the primary effect, then scope, then reversibility. Every sentence carries distinct information with no filler or repetition of the title.

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 destructive, three-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers effect, scope, and reversibility well. The gaps are permission requirements and cascade behavior when a category ID is supplied, both of which matter for a destructive operation but are secondary to what is already stated.

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 67%: channel_id and reason are documented in the schema (including the audit-log note), while 'lock' has no schema description. The prose compensates by defining precisely what locking and unlocking do, which is exactly the meaning the boolean needs. Only the category-vs-channel distinction for channel_id is left to the schema pattern.

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 gives a specific verb and resource (lock/unlock a channel or category) and spells out the exact effect: @everyone can read but not post, react or start threads. That is far more precise than the title alone. It stops short of naming a sibling such as discord_admin_set_permissions for finer-grained permission work, so an agent must infer the boundary from the effect described.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the required boolean 'lock' makes the two modes obvious, and the note about role overrides hints at scope. There is no explicit 'use this instead of X when...' routing, and no mention of prerequisites such as needing Manage Channels permission or when a category lock is preferable to per-channel locks.

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