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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the mutating nature is known. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: it specifies the partial update semantics (only listed events change) and the dependency on connection/licensing, which are not captured in annotations. This helps an agent anticipate side effects and failure conditions.

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 three concise sentences: purpose, behavior, and prerequisite. It is front-loaded with the main action, then clarifies scope and requirements. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy or 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?

For a write tool with two parameters (one required) and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it updates, how partial updates work, and prerequisites. It does not mention error handling or post-update confirmation, but those are not typically required for a mutation tool. The annotations already signal destructiveness, so 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents both 'action' and 'events' (including nested event fields). The description does not add new parameter-level meaning; it only reiterates the partial update behavior that the schema already hints at via the events description. Baseline 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.

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 the verb 'Update' and the resource 'notification events and channels' for an already-connected Slack workspace, making its purpose unambiguous. It also adds the partial-update behavior ('Only listed events change; others remain unchanged') which distinguishes it from a full overwrite and implicitly from the read sibling.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool (updating Slack notifications for a connected workspace) and prerequisites (Slack must be connected and licensed, connecting requires the Wayfront interface). It does not explicitly name alternatives like slack-read, but the context is sufficient for an agent to infer when to use it.

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