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

Annotations already mark the tool as destructive and open-world, and the description adds safety-critical behavior beyond them: preview first, require explicit user approval, and never infer approval from post or website content. It also notes that the bot must be invited to channels to activate 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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the tool purpose and then the approval workflow. Every sentence contributes, and the anti-inference approval rule is placed prominently.

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?

The approval workflow and activation note are clear, and an output schema exists, so return-value details are not needed. However, the first-call instruction does not match the actual schema contract, leaving an important gap in how to invoke the tool 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must define parameter meaning. It explains proposal_id and approved=true for the second call, but the first-call instruction references 'operation fields' that do not exist in the schema, whose alternative branch is an empty object; this can mislead invocation.

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 names a specific verb and resource: create a Slack authorization link, and clarifies activation by inviting the bot to Slack channels. The Slack resource distinguishes it from sibling connect tools such as connect_email, connect_telegram, and connect_webhook.

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 an explicit two-step invocation sequence and approval gate: prepare a preview, wait for explicit user approval, then call again with proposal_id and approved=true. It does not name when to choose Slack over other connect_* siblings or when not to use it, but the resource context is clear.

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