Create Channel Collaborator

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

Beyond the annotations (which already flag a destructive, non-idempotent open-world mutation), the description discloses meaningful behavioral traits: it creates a contact as a side effect when the email doesn't exist, requires confirm=true before the mutation, and warns that it may share access, notify people, or incur provider charges. These are non-obvious consequences the annotations do not convey.

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 in the first sentence, followed by a clearly separated requirements block. The permission boilerplate is lengthy but carries genuinely required information, so it earns most of its space.

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 mutating tool with no output schema, the definition covers the essentials: permissions, the confirm gate, side effects on contacts, and cost/notification risk. The only real gap is the absence of alternatives or a stated return value, the latter being unimportant without an output schema.

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 100%, so the schema already documents every field including the role enum, confirm flag, and payload structure. The description adds the email-creates-contact nuance, which the schema also states, so there is little added meaning beyond the structured fields – baseline 3.

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 states a specific verb and resource – 'Invites a collaborator to a channel by specifying their email address and role' – which is unambiguous about what the tool does. It does not explicitly name or distinguish itself from close siblings like create_webinar_collaborator or invite_contacts, so it stops 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?

It supplies real prerequisites (required token permissions, confirm=true) that tell the agent the conditions under which the call will succeed. However, it gives no guidance on when to prefer this tool over create_webinar_collaborator or invite_contacts, leaving the choice to inference.

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