create_channel

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the creation action but omits any side effects (e.g., whether it's idempotent), authentication requirements, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. The agent lacks critical behavioral context.

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 extremely concise (one sentence, 6 words). While conciseness is generally positive, here it comes at the expense of completeness. It earns its place by stating the core action but does not provide enough detail for effective tool selection and invocation.

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 complexity of this tool (nested input parameter, no output schema, no annotations, and multiple sibling creation tools), the description is insufficient. It fails to explain what a notification channel is, valid types, required details configuration, or expected outcomes. The agent would likely need to guess or consult external documentation.

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%, meaning the description adds no information about parameters. The description does not mention the 'input' object or its properties (name, type, details, active, description). With low coverage and no parameter info in the description, the agent must rely solely on the schema, which lacks enum values for 'type' and detailed context for 'details'.

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 action ('Create') and resource ('new notification channel'), and the context of usage ('in Metabase'). It effectively differentiates from sibling tools like update_channel, get_channel, list_channels, as it focuses solely on creation. However, it does not elaborate on what constitutes a notification channel, which could be inferred but is not explicit.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., update_channel, test_channel), nor does it mention prerequisites, permissions, or typical use cases. The agent receives no contextual hints about appropriate scenarios for channel creation.

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