update-channel

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses full-replace semantics, the read-before-write safeguard, and a quota unit cost. These details go beyond the schema and give the agent insight into side effects and resource consumption, though it doesn't cover authorization failures.

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 sentences with no redundancy. The first sentence states the purpose and affected fields; the second delivers the critical behavioral warning and quota cost. Every word 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?

The tool is a straightforward metadata update with 7 simple string parameters, and the description covers purpose, behavior, and cost. The absence of an output schema is not a significant gap for a write operation. Missing details like permission requirements are somewhat covered by "your channel," so completeness is high but not maximal.

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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage with each parameter described as "unchanged if omitted," so the schema already carries the semantic weight. The description's field list adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond echoing the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: "Update your channel's branding metadata" followed by a concrete list of fields. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like update-video or update-playlist by naming the target resource and the exact data being modified.

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 conveys the context of use (channel branding changes) but provides no explicit exclusions or alternative tool references. It does not say when to use this over related update tools or mention prerequisites such as channel ownership. Usage is implied rather than explicitly guided.

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