Update Teams Channel

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must bear the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'update' without mentioning permissions, whether the update is partial or replaces fields, or the expected outcome/response. This is a significant gap 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 very concise and front-loaded with the primary English sentence. The Chinese intent translations are additional but serve a purpose for intent matching without adding unnecessary verbosity.

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 simple update tool with 100% schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, it omits details like whether at least one of description/displayName must be provided, return behavior, and update semantics, which are not covered by annotations or an output schema.

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 100% with basic parameter descriptions ('New description', 'New channel name'), so the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add meaningful semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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 ('Update the name or description') on a specific resource ('a Microsoft Teams channel'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like create, delete, or get channels. The included Chinese intent examples further reinforce the purpose.

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 implies the tool is for modifying an existing channel's name or description, which provides clear context. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficient for an agent to know when to select this tool over sibling channel tools.

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