channels_update

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds a genuinely useful instruction to confirm before proceeding, but the side-effect phrasing ('reaches other people on the platform, deletes, or redirects data') is generic and does not tie specific fields to specific effects.

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 action is front-loaded and the description is short, but the middle sentence is a run-on whose generic side-effect list reads oddly for a channel-settings update, and the endpoint/gRPC/socket trailer is mechanical noise for the agent.

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 destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers the settings touched and the confirmation requirement, but it omits whether unmentioned settings are preserved or cleared (partial vs. full update) and gives no sense of the response.

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% across 9 parameters, so the description carries the full burden. It names setting groups that loosely map to title, webhookUrl/logWebhook, raiseEvents and logLevel, but leaves config, metadata, syncHistory and the required id undocumented with no format or effect details.

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+resource ('Change a channel') and enumerates the affected settings (title, webhook, event, logging), which distinguishes it from siblings like channels_create and channels_delete. It is clear, though it does not explicitly contrast itself against neighboring channel tools.

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?

Usage is implied by the verb and by the safety instruction to confirm with the user first, but there is no explicit when-to-use framing nor any named alternative for related operations (e.g., channels_credentials_patch vs. this). The agent must infer scope from the tool name.

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