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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, confirming this is a mutation. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it returns a channel id and, for webhooks, a signing_secret for verification, and notes that webhooks are HMAC-signed. It does not contradict annotations and provides useful details beyond the schema.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no filler. Every clause adds value: channel types, return values, signing secret, and authorization requirements. It is efficiently structured and easy to parse.

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 moderate complexity and fully documented schema, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, supported channel types, return values, and security/authorization requirements. It does not need to explain the schema parameters in prose, and the absence of an output schema is compensated by the explicit mention of the returned channel id and signing_secret.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minor context by listing the channel types and indicating that the target matches the kind, but it does not substantially expand on the schema definitions. The schema already fully documents each parameter, so the description's contribution is marginal.

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 creates a notification channel for InboxGuard alerts, enumerating the supported channel types (webhook, Slack, Teams, PagerDuty, SMS, email) and specifying the return value. The verb 'Create' plus the resource 'notification channel' makes the purpose unmistakable and distinguishes it from sibling tools like scan_domain or list_alerts.

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 explicitly states the required API key scope (owner/admin with write or full scope), which is essential for determining when the tool can be invoked. While it doesn't name alternatives, no sibling tool creates notification channels, so the guidance is clear in context and provides a concrete prerequisite.

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