create_channel

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden and does not say what permissions are needed, what happens if parent_id is wrong, or what the tool returns. Only the type mapping is disclosed, which is parameter-level rather than operational behavior.

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 purpose is front-loaded and the second sentence is a dense, useful enum mapping with no filler. However, the text is truncated near the point of under-specification, and the mojibake ("anúncios") degrades readability.

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 six-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, one sentence plus an enum list is thin. Key relationships—such as parent_id gating category nesting and the effect of type on valid parents—are absent.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does add real value by enumerating type values (0=text, 2=voice, 4=category, 5=announcement, 15=forum), which the schema lacks, but leaves name, topic, reason, guild_id, and parent_id entirely unexplained.

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?

"Cria canal" is a specific verb plus resource, so an agent knows this creates a Discord-style channel. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like create_role or create_invite beyond the resource name, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 versus edit_channel or the category-related flows, and no prerequisites such as required permissions or that parent_id must reference a category channel. The agent must infer all of that.

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