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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, and the description adds real value beyond them: partial-update semantics ('Only the supplied fields change'), the resume prerequisite (the Slack connection must still be available on the agent), and the destructive consequence that changing the channel resets the trigger's seen-message state. These are meaningful behavioral disclosures the annotations alone do not convey.

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 core action is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the following sentences each add distinct value (partial-update semantics, resume prerequisite, state reset). No filler or repetition.

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 destructive mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the key risks: partial updates, the resume prerequisite, and the seen-state reset. It is nearly complete, though it omits any note on what the tool returns or confirmation/irreversibility details.

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 already documents every parameter (enabled, channel_id, channel_name, match_rule, is_private, trigger_id) in detail. The description mentions enabled and the channel concept but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (Update) and resource (Slack channel trigger) plus the ownership scope, and enumerates the three mutable aspects (channel, match rule, enabled). It is clearly a partial-update tool, though it does not name the sibling alternatives like createAgentSlackTrigger or deleteSlackTrigger to distinguish itself explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by the enumerated actions — repoint, change matching, pause/resume — and the ownership qualifier ('you own') hints at a constraint. However, it never states when to prefer this over deleteSlackTrigger (removal) or createAgentSlackTrigger (creation), so an agent must infer the boundary itself.

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