Put a build into a channel

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

Beyond the annotations (idempotent, non-destructive, non-read-only), the description discloses the consequential behaviors: already-installed apps are not changed, an older build causes a link rollback, Team gated channels can refuse the call, and human confirmation is required. It also states the plan and role requirements (Pro and Team, Developer role), which annotations cannot express.

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?

Front-loads the effect, then consequences, then the Team gate, then the confirmation and eligibility tacks. Dense but each clause carries distinct information; the packed semicolon phrasing makes it marginally harder to scan than it could be.

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 small three-parameter mutation with no output schema, this covers the effect, side effects, rollback semantics, gating prerequisites, confirmation requirement, and eligibility. It does not describe the response or what happens if the channel gate refuses (error shape), but that gap is minor at this 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 67% and the undocumented parameter is confirm, whose `const: true` schema tells an agent nothing about intent. The description supplies that intent — ask the person first and pass confirm: true — which is genuine added meaning. build and channel are already explained in the schema, so no further detail is owed.

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 concrete verb+resource+effect: make a build the newest in a channel so the channel link and QR code open it. That effect statement separates it cleanly from siblings like add_build_link or set_channel_address, which do not change what the channel link points at.

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?

Gives clear usage context: use it to point a channel at a build, using an older build deliberately rolls back, and Team gated channels require a ticked release checklist plus no open blocker before it will succeed. It routes to release_checklist for the gate but does not compare itself to the other link-management siblings, so guidance is strong but not exhaustive.

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