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

The description mentions prerequisites but does not disclose other behavioral traits such as whether it is destructive, idempotent, or modifies existing resources. Since annotations are empty, the description carries a higher burden. It does add value by explaining that Telegram requires an additional plan tier, but lacks details on side effects or error behavior.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose and type options. The second sentence provides necessary usage constraints. It is slightly redundant with schema descriptions for parameters but is still efficient.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (6 parameters, type-specific behavior) and no output schema, the description covers essential prerequisites and parameter semantics. It lacks a note about the return value, but that may be acceptable given no output schema. Complete enough for an agent to call correctly with schema support.

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?

The description adds meaning to parameters by explaining that 'url' is not used for Telegram, and that 'bot_token' and 'chat_id' are required for Telegram. This goes beyond the schema, which only states 'Required when type is telegram' for those fields without clarifying URL usage. The schema covers all parameters, but the description clarifies type-specific requirements.

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 tool's purpose: creating notification channels of specific types (Slack, Discord, Telegram, generic webhook). It uses a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('notification channel'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'delete-notification-channel' and 'test-notification-channel'.

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 specifies prerequisites: requires Full Access MCP token and eligible paid plan, with additional requirements for Telegram (Pro or Business). It indicates when to use the tool (to create a channel) but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives, though sibling tools like 'update-monitor' and 'test-notification-channel' are conceptually distinct.

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