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

Goes well beyond destructiveHint=true by disclosing the permission split per action, the 2026-08-28 grant date, the special unarchive limitation for bot tokens, the reconnect-hint behavior for pre-feature workspaces, and that the change is visible workspace-wide. This is rich operational context an agent cannot derive from annotations.

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?

Front-loads the action list, then the parameter requirements, then permission caveats, then the confirmation warning — a logical order. Slightly dense in the permission clause, but no sentence is filler.

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?

Covers operation scope, per-action required fields, authentication nuances including the unarchive edge case, and the user-confirmation requirement. With no output schema, the description still gives enough for correct invocation; nothing critical is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter including enum values and constraints. The description adds the action-to-parameter mapping (rename→name, set_topic→topic, kick→user_id), which is a useful cross-reference but not new semantics beyond the schema.

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 names a specific multi-action tool and enumerates every operation (archive, unarchive, rename, set_topic, set_purpose, kick), making its scope unambiguous. No sibling competes for this exact function, and the parenthetical for 'kick' clarifies an unfamiliar term.

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 gives concrete per-action requirements ('Needs name for rename, topic for set_topic...') and a caution to confirm with the user before acting. It does not, however, point to any alternative tool for overlapping needs like reading a channel, so routing guidance is partial.

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