Vigiar canal

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

Annotations already establish that this mutates state (readOnlyHint=false), is idempotent and non-destructive. The description adds genuinely new behavior: watched channels route all traffic to the inbox without requiring a mention, and the watch list is persisted. It does not discuss auth requirements or how removal affects existing inbox items.

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?

Four short clauses, each front-loading an action token followed by its effect, with the default flagged inline. No padding or repetition.

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 4-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the action semantics, the default mode and the persistence trait, which is enough to invoke it correctly. Minor gaps remain around error cases and whether watched channels persist across sessions.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description goes further by spelling out the runtime effect of each action enum value and confirming the 'list' default. The note and format parameters are left entirely to the schema, which is acceptable given full coverage.

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 names a concrete verb+resource ('watch channel') and breaks down exactly what add, remove and list do, including the notable effect that watched-channel traffic reaches the inbox even without a mention. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like list_channels or inbox, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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?

It explains each action mode and marks 'list' as the default, which effectively tells the agent when to use which mode. There is no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative (e.g. mute or search_messages), so it falls short of a 5.

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