update_channel

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose two non-obvious mutation semantics: omitted fields retain stored values, and a stored secret is never cleared this way. It does not address permissions, validation on type changes, or what happens to dependent config when type is altered, which are meaningful gaps for an unannotated 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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the core action first and the partial-update caveat immediately after. Nothing is wasted and nothing important is buried.

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 an eight-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the key update semantics but omits return behavior, error conditions, and interaction between type and config/secret changes. It is adequate but leaves real gaps.

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%, so all eight parameters are already documented per-field, establishing the baseline of 3. The description only restates the omit-to-keep semantics already present in individual parameter descriptions, adding no new per-parameter meaning.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Update a notification channel") that clearly separates it from create_channel, delete_channel and get_channel. However, it says nothing about how it differs from other update_* siblings such as update_trigger or update_escalation_policy, so differentiation is by resource name only.

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 clause "Omitted fields keep their stored value" implies partial-update usage, which is useful context, but there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus create_channel or the other update tools, and no prerequisites or preconditions are given.

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