create_channel

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It simply says 'Creates a new channel' without mentioning side effects, permission requirements, uniqueness constraints, return values, or any other behavioral traits. For a mutation tool requiring 10 parameters, this is a severe gap.

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 a single sentence, 'Creates a new channel in a company.' It is concise, front-loaded, and contains no unnecessary words. Every word contributes to the core message, making it highly efficient.

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 10 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is dramatically under-specified. It does not explain the meaning of key parameters beyond schema, the return value, or any contextual constraints (e.g., channel name uniqueness, permission requirements). An agent would lack critical context for correct 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 description coverage is 100%, with each parameter having its own description. The tool description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Creates a new channel in a company' clearly states the action (creates) and resource (a channel), including the scope 'in a company.' It distinguishes from sibling channel tools by the verb, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from create_conversation or create_broadcast. Purpose is clear and specific.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites (e.g., company must exist, naming constraints), and no exclusions. It only states the action without any contextual usage advice. The agent must infer usage solely from the tool name.

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