Create a channel link code

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

Annotations already establish that this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world operation. The description adds important behavioral context by saying the code is short-lived and must be sent to the Telegram bot, though it omits details like expiry duration or single-use 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 description is two tight sentences, front-loads the core action, and includes only useful workflow context. No sentence is redundant.

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 one-parameter tool with an output schema and clear annotations, the description is complete enough. It explains the purpose, the short-lived nature of the token, and the next action an agent should take.

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 only parameter, 'channel,' is fully documented in the schema with its default and Phase 1 scope. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate for 100% schema coverage.

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 a specific verb, 'Generate,' and a specific resource, 'short-lived link code,' and explains its linking purpose with the Telegram bot. It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like list_channel_accounts.

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?

It clearly states the usage context: send the code to the EzUGC Telegram bot to link a chat and enable messaging/deliveries. It does not explicitly mention exclusions or compare against list_channel_accounts, so it falls short of a 5.

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