platform_sdk_channels

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It does reveal a key trait: create_key returns the raw public key only once. It also explains create_channel's binding behavior. However, it omits details like whether create operations are idempotent, any required order (e.g., key before channel), or consequences of mutation. It provides partial transparency but not comprehensive.

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 fairly succinct, with a front-loaded scope statement followed by a compact action list with necessary clarifications. The opening '[Arch Build]' and general 'Arch creates and changes...' sentence could be trimmed, but the core information is presented efficiently without redundancy.

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 tool with 11 parameters, 4 actions, nested objects, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not describe return formats, how actions interrelate (e.g., that create_key yields a publicApiKeyId used by create_channel), or handling of nested parameters like permissions. Agents would need to infer much of the behavior from parameter names and enums, leaving significant gaps.

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 64%, so the description adds some value beyond the schema. For create_channel it clarifies that channelType and environment are tied to binding a key to a deployment, which helps interpret parameters like publicApiKeyId. However, it does not elaborate on permissions, allowedOrigins, offset, or limit, leaving gaps that the schema only partially fills. Moderate supplementation.

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 identifies the tool's focus: 'Manage the public SDK bootstrap surface' and enumerates four specific actions (list_keys, create_key, list_channels, create_channel) with brief semantic notes (e.g., 'raw public key returned once'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that manage other platform resources, though the opening line about Arch broadly is generic and could be trimmed.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It states the scope ('SDK bootstrap surface') but does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or name any sibling tools for comparison. Given many platform_* siblings, agents must infer when to pick this one based on the action list alone.

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