setup_channels

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the tool only persists data and does not self-schedule, which is real behavioral context. It does not say whether existing channel config is overwritten or merged, what permissions are needed, or what happens to channels omitted from the array.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the key scoping caveat. No filler. Slightly telegraphic, but nothing is wasted.

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, no output schema, and an undocumented nested parameter object, the description is thin. The data-only caveat is valuable, but an agent still lacks guidance on merge semantics, validation of cadence values, and the shape of the channels entries.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does add value for x_intent_path by stating the default ('post') and the alternative ('tweet'), which the schema does not convey. But the required channels array and its nested id/enabled/cadence/day fields are left entirely unexplained.

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 and resource: 'Enable channels and record cadence.' The parenthetical clarifies scope ('data only; this server does not self-schedule'), which meaningfully distinguishes it from a scheduler. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like get_setup or get_cadence_status, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied by 'enable channels and record cadence,' and the parenthetical rules out expecting scheduling behavior. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., whether setup must exist first), and no named alternative for reading current channel state.

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