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

Annotations already state destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true; the description adds only the admin authorization requirement and says nothing about what is destroyed or replaced (e.g., whether an existing Slack link for that member is overwritten). For a tool the annotations flag as destructive, the absence of any wording about the effect on prior mappings is a meaningful gap.

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?

Two short front-loaded sentences with no filler, which is structurally sound. The terseness is, however, under-specification rather than efficiency given the operation's destructive nature.

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?

With no output schema, 0% parameter documentation, and a destructive, idempotent write, the description should cover what happens on re-invocation, what the idempotency key protects against, and the effect on any pre-existing mapping. None of that is present, so an agent cannot call this confidently without reading the schema alone.

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 0% across four parameters. The description implies the two required inputs (a team member and a Slack user) but says nothing about request_id or idempotency_key, which are opaque names for a destructive idempotent operation and need explanation more than most. It only marginally compensates for the coverage gap.

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?

"Match one team member to Slack" names a verb and a resource, so the general intent (link an internal user to a Slack identity) is inferable. However, the wording is nearly indistinguishable from the sibling tools yardstick_slack_members_match and yardstick_slack_member_unset, and the description never clarifies whether this creates, replaces, or upserts the link — a distinction the name ('set') only hints at.

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?

"Admins only" is a real precondition and is useful, but there is no guidance on when to use this versus yardstick_slack_members_match, yardstick_slack_member_unset, or yardstick_slack_members_list, all of which live in the same Slack-namespace cluster. The agent is left to guess which of four near-identical Slack-member tools to call.

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