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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: a new destination silently receives nothing until a notification route points at it, and webhook destinations carry credentials that this tool deliberately cannot handle. It does not cover error/duplicate-name behavior, but the added context is substantial.

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?

Four sentences, zero filler: scope, channel provenance, excluded webhook case, and downstream routing dependency, in that order. The most decision-relevant constraint (which destinations belong here) is front-loaded.

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 output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs to call it correctly: required channel provenance, excluded use cases, and the follow-up route requirement. Annotations plus schema cover the remaining structural details.

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 name, enabled, template, channel_id, description and the integration_type enum are already documented. The description's note that channel_id must originate from list_alert_destination_channels duplicates the schema's own wording rather than adding new semantics, 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?

States a specific verb (Create) and a precisely scoped resource (channel-based alert destination), and immediately narrows it to Slack channels the Ankra app posts to or Teams channels the Ankra bot is installed in. It also distinguishes itself from the webhook-destination variant, so an agent can tell it apart from siblings like create_notification_route without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: channels must come from list_alert_destination_channels, webhook destinations (Discord, PagerDuty, custom, Slack incoming webhooks) must be created in the portal or CLI and 'never here', and a route is required via create_notification_route before delivery. Both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are covered with named alternatives.

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