update_channel_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Enable or disable' implies a mutation operation, the description doesn't address permissions needed, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, side effects on active streams, or what happens after the operation completes. This leaves significant behavioral gaps 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 a single, efficient sentence that communicates the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool with two parameters and gets straight to the point.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'enabled' or 'disabled' mean functionally, what the response looks like, error conditions, or how this operation interacts with sibling tools like 'start_stream' and 'stop_stream'. The description leaves too many contextual questions unanswered.

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 100%, with both parameters clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema (channel ID and enable/disable boolean). The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate but minimal value added by the description.

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') and resource ('a specific streaming channel'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'update_stream_settings' or explain how channel status differs from stream control operations.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'start_stream', 'stop_stream', and 'update_stream_settings', there's no indication whether channel status is a separate administrative control, a prerequisite for streaming, or how it relates to other channel operations.

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