runrunit_discord_create_channel

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does real work: it reveals idempotency ('if not exists', 'avoid create duplicate channels'), name normalization ('Client 1' -> 'client-1'), and guild_id resolution via env fallback. The main gap is that it doesn't state what happens when the channel already exists (return existing vs error) or what the return value looks like.

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?

Three tight sentences front-load the core function, then add normalization and configuration details. The only inefficiencies are minor redundancy with the schema's name-parameter description, which repeats the 'Client 1' -> 'client-1' example, and slight grammar friction ('avoid create duplicate channels').

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: action, idempotency, naming pattern, and guild resolution. It is incomplete on the duplicate-channel outcome (no statement of return behavior), and it fails to clarify how this tool relates to the similarly-named runrunit_discord_get_or_create_channel sibling.

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%, so the baseline is 3 and the schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds no new parameter-level meaning: its normalization example ('Client 1' -> 'client-1') and the env-var fallback for guild_id both duplicate text already present in the schema descriptions.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Create a text channel in the Discord server (guild)', with the 'if not exists' qualifier conveying idempotent creation. It is clear about the core action. However, it does not differentiate itself from the sibling runrunit_discord_get_or_create_channel, which covers nearly the same behavior, so it stops short of a 5.

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 provides operational context: 'Use guild_id from env (DISCORD_GUILD_ID) or pass explicitly' and 'One channel per client pattern', which implies the intended use case. But it never names alternatives or exclusion conditions — notably runrunit_discord_get_or_create_channel and runrunit_discord_list_channels — leaving the when-to-use decision ambiguous.

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