update_channel

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It clearly states the action (enable/disable), so the mutating nature is transparent. However, it doesn't disclose what happens on toggle (e.g., does disabling stop in-flight sends?), any permission requirements, or potential side effects on other tools.

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, tight sentence with zero waste. It front-loads the verb ('Enable or disable'), names the resource ('outreach channel'), and enumerates the valid channel values. 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?

For a simple two-parameter tool with 100% schema coverage, the description is mostly adequate. However, there are sibling tools like get_channels_status that logically pair with this one, and the description doesn't reference them. It also doesn't give any context about what the enabled state affects downstream (e.g., sending behaviors).

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?

With schema description coverage at 100%, the schema already documents both parameters fully ('Channel to update' and 'Whether to enable (true) or disable (false)'). The description adds essentially no information beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Enable or disable') with a specific resource ('a specific outreach channel') and enumerates the channel types (whatsapp, sms, push). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like get_channels_status (which reads status) since it's explicitly about mutation. The main gap is it doesn't name a sibling alternative for comparison.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that get_channels_status is the read counterpart, nor does it state any conditions or prerequisites for toggling channels. The usage context is only implied by the channel enum values and action verb.

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