Create a channel

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false (mutation) and destructiveHint=false. The description explicitly states 'This MODIFIES the team,' which aligns with annotations but adds no further behavioral details such as authorization needs, rate limits, or side effects. Given annotations, this is adequate but not enriching.

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 concise with a clear opening sentence and a structured parameter list. However, the parameter list largely repeats schema details, which could be trimmed. Overall, it's efficient and front-loaded.

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?

Given no output schema, the description includes return format. It covers all parameters and the modification aspect. It lacks prerequisites or permission context but is generally complete for a creation tool with moderate complexity.

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 100%, so the schema documents each parameter. The description lists parameters with types and defaults, adding limited value for parameters, but it also provides the return format 'Returns: JSON { id, displayName, webUrl }' which is not in the input schema or output schema (nonexistent), adding meaning beyond the schema.

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 states 'Create a new channel in a team.' The verb 'create' and resource 'channel' are specific, and the tool is easily distinguished from siblings like teams_list_channels (listing) and teams_send_channel_message (messaging).

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. It only mentions 'This MODIFIES the team.' No context about prerequisites or exclusions.

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