포트원 테스트 채널 추가

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool adds a channel, lacking details on side effects, idempotency, required permissions, or error conditions. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.

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 concise with two sentences: a main statement and a NOTE. It is front-loaded and efficient, though the NOTE could be integrated for better flow.

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 simple add tool with an output schema, the description is adequate but lacks context on when to use it versus sibling tools (beyond the MID note) and does not discuss concurrency or error outcomes. The behavioral gaps lower the score.

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 input schema has 100% parameter description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it reinforces the MID parameter's source but does not clarify 'manualConfirm' behavior beyond its schema description.

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 clearly states the tool's function: adding a public test channel to the merchant's representative store. The verb 'add' and resource 'test channel' are specific. It distinguishes from sibling tools like listSharedTestChannels (which retrieves MIDs) and getChannelsOfStore (which lists existing channels).

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 NOTE explicitly instructs users to obtain the MID from listSharedTestChannels before using this tool, providing clear prerequisite guidance. However, it does not specify when not to use this tool or mention alternative tools for different scenarios.

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