Create Teams 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. It discloses the supported channel types and the 21V limitation for shared channels, but does not mention other behavioral aspects like the need for an owner in private channels (already in schema) or any default behavior beyond what the schema states. The description adds some value but lacks comprehensive transparency.

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 concise sentences plus Chinese intent mappings, front-loading the core purpose first. The Chinese list is slightly redundant for English agents but serves intent matching without bloating the text. Overall, every sentence earns its place, though the structure could be slightly tighter without the language hints.

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 create operation with 5 parameters and no output schema, the combination of a clear description and a detailed 100% coverage schema is reasonably complete. The description covers purpose and constraints; the schema covers all parameters. It does not describe the return value, but that nuance is secondary for a creation tool.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds no parameter-specific detail beyond restating 'standard or private', which is already captured by the membershipType enum. It does not clarify any parameter subtleties not already present in the schema.

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 clear verb ('Create'), an explicit resource ('Teams channel'), and scope ('standard or private'), and explicitly excludes shared-channel creation, distinguishing it from sibling tools like teams_create_chat or teams_update_channel. The Chinese intent list further clarifies the operation's purpose.

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 an explicit when-not-to-use exception: shared-channel creation is excluded because Microsoft does not support it in 21V, giving clear guidance on a specific limitation. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for related operations (e.g., teams_update_channel for modifications), so guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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