tvh_create_channel

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context such as what dry_run does, whether creation is reversible, or whether auth/permissions are required. It does not contradict the annotations, but it contributes almost nothing beyond them.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted wording. The trailing 'etc.' weakens precision slightly, but the definition is appropriately sized for a short tool description.

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?

This is a create operation with a nested, loosely typed settings object at 0% schema description coverage, and the description does little to fill that gap. The output schema covers return values and annotations cover safety, but dry_run behavior and the full structure of settings remain unexplained for a fairly complex mutation.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden. It partially compensates by naming settings fields ('name, number, services UUID array, tags, EPG settings'), which helps populate the nested settings object. However, it never mentions the dry_run parameter and uses a vague 'etc.', leaving the semantics of both parameters incomplete.

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 ('Create a channel') and enumerates the key fields involved, which clearly distinguishes it from read-oriented siblings like tvh_list_channels. The 'etc.' leaves scope slightly open, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives. It does not say when to prefer this over related creation tools (e.g. tvh_create_channel_tag) or what conditions must hold before creating a channel.

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