create_text_channel

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full behavioral burden for a mutating operation and discloses almost nothing: no permission requirements, no mention that this is irreversible, no note that guildId defaults to the DISCORD_GUILD_ID environment variable, and no description of what the created channel returns.

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 short sentence with the action and resource front-loaded and zero filler. It is efficient, though arguably so terse that it omits useful framing rather than being an example of well-structured completeness.

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 an eight-parameter mutating tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition is under-specified: it does not cover permissions, defaults, failure modes, or the resulting channel object. The rich schema partly compensates on parameters, but the behavioral gap remains.

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%, with all eight parameters individually documented (name, nsfw, topic, reason, guildId default, position, slowmode range, categoryId). The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 and resource ('Create a new text channel') and the scope ('in a server'), and the word 'text' implicitly distinguishes it from create_voice_channel, create_stage_channel, and create_forum_channel. However, it never names those alternatives, so an agent must infer the distinction from the name alone.

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 guidance about when to use this rather than create_voice_channel, create_stage_channel, create_forum_channel, or create_category, all of which are near neighbors in the sibling list. No prerequisites (e.g. required permissions such as Manage Channels) or post-creation steps are mentioned.

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