channels_create

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one useful behavioral fact — that creation immediately returns a QR code/state — but says nothing about authentication, whether config state is persisted, or side effects like webhooks/logLevel. Adequate but not rich.

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?

One compact sentence front-loads the action and result. The transport parenthetical (REST route, gRPC method, socket event) is arguably noise for tool selection but is short and arguably useful for cross-referencing.

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?

With no output schema the description must carry the return contract, and 'first QR code / state' is only a partial hint — it doesn't explain the channel identifier or state shape. Combined with 8 undocumented parameters including a nested config object, the definition is incomplete 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 0% across 8 parameters (title, id, config, logLevel, logWebhook, webhookUrl, raiseEvents, syncHistory, plus a nested config object). The description names none of them, so an agent has no idea what config, logLevel, or syncHistory do or what values are expected.

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 specific verb and resource ('Create a channel') and even discloses the primary return value ('its first QR code / state'). However, it never distinguishes a 'channel' from a 'chat', despite chats_create being a sibling, so an agent cannot tell the two apart from the description alone.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of how this differs from chats_create or when to prefer channels_get/channels_request_qr instead. The agent gets no routing help.

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