edit_channel

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing about required permissions, whether omitted/null fields are left unchanged, or whether the change is auditable. It also does not mention the 'reason' parameter's audit-log purpose, which is the one behavioral detail an agent most needs on a mutation.

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?

A single short sentence with the changed fields front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though the brevity is achieved by omitting content that would actually help rather than by trimming redundancy.

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 six-parameter mutation tool with zero annotation coverage and no output schema, one sentence naming some fields is far too thin. Permission requirements, null-means-unchanged semantics, and the audit reason all go unexplained.

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%, so the description must compensate for all six parameters. It names roughly four (name, topic, 'categoria' presumably mapping to parent_id, position) but never mentions 'reason' or the required 'channel_id', and gives no semantics for position ordering or the parent/category identifier format.

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 states a specific verb ('Edita') and resource ('canal') plus the fields it can change, which distinguishes it from siblings like create_channel and delete_channel. It stops short of naming the sibling it contrasts with or clarifying that it performs a partial update.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives (e.g. set_channel_permission for permissions), and no prerequisites such as needing Manage Channels permission. The agent must infer context entirely 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.