Update Channel

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the mutation profile is known. The description adds genuinely new context: the confirm=true precondition and side effects (sharing access, notifying people, incurring provider charges). The hedge 'May' leaves these effects unquantified, keeping it below a 5.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and then the precondition and side effects. No filler, though the second sentence is a vague catch-all that could be sharpened.

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 an 11-parameter mutation with nested podcast objects and no output schema, the description covers the mutation gate and side effects but says nothing about the payload vs. payload_file vs. body-flags alternatives, which the schema notes are mutually exclusive. Adequate but with a notable routing gap.

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%, so the schema already documents all 11 parameters including the confirm semantics. The description merely restates the confirm requirement and adds no syntax, format, or interaction details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clear verb and resource ('Updates a channel'), so the operation is unambiguous. However, it offers no differentiation from adjacent siblings such as update_channel_episode, update_brand, or update_webinar, which an agent must distinguish. Clear but not distinctive.

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 (e.g. update_channel_episode for episode-level edits, or create_channel). The only conditional given is the confirm=true requirement, which is a gate, not a when-to-use rule.

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