Create a sales channel

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the write nature is known. The description adds context about the two channel types (headless vs hosted) but doesn't disclose side effects, return values, or prerequisites beyond that. With annotations covering the basic safety profile, the description provides modest 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 two concise sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the primary action and then efficiently explains the two type options, making it easy to parse and use.

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 fully described schema and the clarification of the two types, the description is sufficient for an agent to call the tool correctly. It doesn't explicitly mention the auto-generated handle for quick-link or the return format, but these are not critical for invocation and the overall context is complete enough.

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% and the schema already details when `name` and `url` are required or unsupported for each type. The description restates the type semantics but adds no new parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline but doesn't exceed it.

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 it creates a sales channel for a store, and explains the two channel types (custom and quick-link), distinguishing it from sibling tools like list or update. The verb 'create' is explicit, and the resource is unambiguous.

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 explains when to use each channel type (custom for headless, quick-link for hosted one-page store), which guides the agent in choosing the right `type`. It doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives like ecommerce_listSalesChannelsV1 or ecommerce_updateSalesChannelV1, but the context is sufficient for correct selection.

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