channels_create_guild_channel

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't need to restate that this is a write operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: 'Pick fields that match the type - extra fields are ignored by Discord' and a concrete example illustrating usage. It stops short of describing permission requirements or failure modes, but with annotation coverage this is sufficient.

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 compact yet well-structured, using bolded mini-headings (Purpose, When to use, When NOT to use, Type values, Example, Returns). Every sentence serves a purpose: defining scope, giving usage context, listing type enums, demonstrating usage, and summarizing output. No filler or redundancy.

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 19 parameters, nested objects, and an output schema, the description provides comprehensive context: purpose, type values, exclusions, an example, and a return summary. It fully addresses the agent's need to decide when and how to use the tool, with the schema handling detailed parameter semantics. No significant gaps remain for effective invocation.

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%, which sets a baseline of 3. The description goes beyond the schema by explaining Discord channel type values (0-16), noting that type-specific fields should be chosen and extra fields are ignored, and providing an example that ties guild_id, name, type, and parent_id together. This adds meaning beyond raw schema definitions, though it doesn't elaborate on every parameter.

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 opens with 'Create a new channel in a guild (text, voice, category, announcement, forum, etc.)', which is a specific verb+resource that immediately conveys the tool's function. It also distinguishes from thread creation by explicitly referencing alternative tools for threads, making its scope clear relative to siblings.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance ('Programmatic guild bootstrap; tier-based channel provisioning') and a clear when-NOT-to-use with named alternatives ('Threads - use `messages_create_thread`, `channels_forum_create_thread`, or thread-specific tools'). This is precisely the kind of contextual guidance that helps an agent select the right tool.

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