create_alert_channel

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Create a new alert channel' without mentioning whether the action is destructive (creates something), required permissions, rate limits, idempotency, or side effects. The description lacks sufficient behavioral context for a creation tool.

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 two clear sentences with a bullet list of types. It is front-loaded with the action and requirements. The list of types, while long, is necessary. Could be more structured (e.g., list as a code block), but overall efficient and not verbose.

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 the complexity of the input schema (18 config variants), the description does not explain how to construct the config object or that 'type' corresponds to 'channelType' inside the config. It does not mention the output (though output schema exists but not provided). The description is insufficient to fully guide an agent for this complex tool, relying heavily on the schema.

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?

The description mentions required fields (name, type, config) and lists channel types, which adds some meaning beyond the schema. However, the term 'type' is ambiguous because the actual schema uses 'channelType' inside the config. The schema itself is detailed with descriptions for each config sub-property, so the description's marginal value is limited. With 0% top-level parameter description coverage (the 'body' parameter lacks a description), the description partially compensates but could be clearer.

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?

Description explicitly says 'Create a new alert channel' with a clear verb+resource. It lists required fields and enumerates the 18 supported types. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like test_alert_channel or update_alert_channel, but their names make the purpose distinct enough.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like test_alert_channel or update_alert_channel. The description does not provide context about prerequisites, when not to use, or which scenarios are appropriate for creation.

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