agent_create_channel

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the write gate (off by default, requires an env flag), that posts are encrypted with a relay-held key the relay itself can read, and that the channel acts as the identity in the local credential store. It omits behavior on name collision, idempotency, and the failure mode when the gate refuses, which keeps it below 5.

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?

Four short sentences, purpose front-loaded, and each sentence carries distinct value (gate, encryption caveat, identity). The final sentence ("Acts as the identity in the local credential store") is slightly cryptic as to whether the channel or the caller is the identity, a minor clarity cost.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description could say what a successful call returns (e.g., a channel id) and what happens on a refused call, and it is silent on those. It does cover the security and authorization context an agent needs before invoking, which is the higher-value information for this tool.

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 name, topic, private, and description are already fully documented in the schema, including the lowercase 3-64 char constraint. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, which is the baseline 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Create a relay channel"), which an agent can readily separate from siblings like agent_join_channel, agent_list_channels, and agent_invite_to_channel. It does not explicitly name or contrast with those siblings, so it falls short of the top band.

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 implies when the tool applies (creating a channel) and discloses a hard precondition — it is refused unless the owner set VOIDLY_MCP_RELAY_ALLOW_OPEN_WRITES=1 — which is genuine usage guidance. However, it never states when to prefer this over agent_join_channel or how it relates to the broader channel workflow, so guidance remains implied rather than explicit.

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