edit_channel

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the write nature, the gating condition, and partial-update behavior, which is valuable. But it omits permission requirements, potential side effects on channel ordering, and reversibility, leaving gaps for a mutation tool.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the WRITE flag, and every word adds value. There is zero fluff, and it conveys core behavior efficiently.

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 5-parameter tool, the description gives a high-level overview and notes partial updates, which is helpful. With an output schema present, return details are not needed. However, missing parameter constraints and prerequisites make it only minimally complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It maps actions to fields (rename->name, re-topic->topic, re-parent->parent_id, reorder->position) but does not explain constraints like position semantics, parent_id validity, or name rules. This is only partial compensation.

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 'Rename/re-topic/re-parent/reorder an existing channel' clearly states the tool's verb+resource and specific operations. It distinguishes from siblings like create_channel, delete_channel, edit_role, and edit_guild by focusing on editing existing channels.

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?

Implied usage is clear ('existing channel', 'only fields explicitly passed are changed'), and the WRITE gate provides a conditional prerequisite. However, there's no explicit comparison to alternatives or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer when to choose this over other edit/create tools.

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