Create Channel

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

Annotations already disclose readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, indicating a mutating operation with potential side effects. The description adds minimal behavioral context ('routes an inbound messaging platform'), which hints at side effects like webhook setup but does not elaborate on specifics such as required credentials or idempotency. No contradiction with annotations.

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, focused sentence that immediately states the action and purpose. There is no redundant wording or filler, making it optimally concise and front-loaded for an agent to parse quickly.

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 tool's moderate complexity (4 params, nested objects) and rich schema descriptions, the description provides sufficient context for an agent to understand the purpose and choose the tool. No output schema exists, but this is a create operation where the primary outcome (channel creation) is implied. The absence of return-value documentation is a minor gap, but not critical for 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?

The schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, including platform, config, agent_routes, and default_agent_id. The description adds only a high-level example of platforms (telegram, slack), which is already present in the schema. As schema coverage is high, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses the specific verb 'Create' with a clear resource ('a channel configuration') and explains its function: routing inbound messaging platforms (e.g. telegram, slack) to Lyzr agents. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like lyzr_create_agent or lyzr_list_channels, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when setting up a new inbound messaging channel for Lyzr agents. It provides context (messaging platforms) and does not actively conflict with alternatives, but it does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternatives (e.g., lyzr_add_channel_agent_route for modifying routes). Thus it has clear context but no exclusion guidance.

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