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

Adds substantial context beyond annotations: single-use, 15-minute expiry, attribution recorded to the caller, treat-as-password sensitivity, and the owner/admin permission requirement. These are consistent with openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false rather than contradicting them.

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?

Five short sentences, all earning their place: action first, then how to use it, then lifetime semantics, then security warning, then permission requirement. Zero 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?

Behavior, lifetime, and permission gates are covered well for a link-generating mutation with no output schema. The one gap is that it never says the generated link itself is what comes back, which matters since there is no output schema to reveal the return shape.

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 only 33%, so the description needed to carry weight for 'company' and 'teammate'. It implies the teammate parameter through the resource name but never clarifies the company UUID or how the two scoping parameters interact; only idempotency is documented in 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Make a one-time link that connects the teammate's Slack account') and is clearly distinguishable from siblings such as summer_teammates_slack_disconnect or summer_slack_identity_update. The one-time, Slack-account-scoped nature is explicit.

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?

Gives concrete operational context: open it in a browser signed in as the teammate, select Allow, no Summer sign-in required, and the caller must be a company owner or administrator. It does not explicitly name when to prefer a sibling (e.g., disconnect) but the usage path is unambiguous.

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