channel_create

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses idempotency, the created=false outcome, and that channels are organizational labels rather than ACLs — a genuinely non-obvious semantic. However, it says nothing about permissions, workspace-scoping errors, or failure behavior, so meaningful gaps remain.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and the idempotency caveat. Every clause earns its place with no filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and both params are fully described. The description covers semantics and idempotency; only authorization/prerequisite context is absent, which is minor for a low-risk creation tool.

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 100% and the schema already documents both name (max 64 chars, unique per workspace, idempotent) and project_root. The description only restates the idempotency aspect, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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 (Create) and resource (channel) with scope (by name) and an idempotency qualifier. An agent can distinguish this from channel_list and other channel siblings without opening the schema.

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?

Clear context for when to call it — creating a channel by name, tolerating repeats via idempotency. It does not name alternatives (e.g. channel_list) or state exclusions, but the usage window is unambiguous.

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