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

Beyond annotations, it discloses side effects precisely: writes to Inclusify configuration only, never posts to Slack, no confirmation needed for enabling, confirmation required for disabling or raising the threshold, and the PRO plan requirement. This matches and enriches the destructiveHint and readOnlyHint 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?

The description is dense but every sentence contributes: purpose, triggers, side effects, merge behavior, prerequisite, confirmation rules, and plan constraint. It is front-loaded with the key distinction from set_slack_channel and uses focused emphasis rather than padding.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, it covers all essential operational context: preconditions, side effects, merge semantics, confirmation flow, and plan gating. The schema covers parameter details, so an agent has enough to select and invoke it correctly.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds valuable semantic clarity by grouping the parameters as 'four independent switches plus a threshold, all optional' and stating 'anything you leave out stays as it is,' plus which changes require confirmation. It doesn't detail each parameter individually, but the schema already covers those details.

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 action and resource: it decides which kinds of finding get announced to Slack by writing to the site's Inclusify configuration. It also differentiates itself from the sibling set_slack_channel by saying it operates 'once a channel is already chosen.'

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 triggers ('to quieten somewhere noisy, or to switch on something a team keeps missing'), a prerequisite ('use set_slack_channel first, and this refuses until then'), and a plan requirement. This tells an agent when to invoke it and what must be true first.

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