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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and non-idempotent, but the description adds critical behavior the annotations cannot convey: a mandatory preview-then-confirm handshake and that approval must come from the user in chat. 'Pause future deliveries' also implies in-flight deliveries are unaffected. It does not state reversibility explicitly (that lives in the sibling resume_integration) or what the preview contains.

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?

Six short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then the Slack caveat, then the exact call sequence. Every sentence carries operative instruction with no 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 destructive, two-phase tool with an output schema covering the preview response, the description supplies everything needed to call it correctly: purpose, both call modes, ordering, and the approval guardrail. Return shape is covered by the output schema, so nothing essential 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 0%, so the description has to carry the semantics, and it does explain the meaning of proposal_id (the handle returned from the preview call) and approved=true, plus what belongs in the first call via 'operation fields'. The phrase 'operation fields' is slightly vague since that branch contains only provider, leaving a small 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Pause future deliveries to one integration') and scopes it with a caveat that Slack channels are managed inside Slack. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from disconnect_integration or resume_integration, so the agent must infer that pausing is reversible and distinct from removal.

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?

Gives an explicit two-phase protocol: first call with operation fields to prepare a preview, show it, wait for explicit user approval, then call again with only proposal_id and approved=true. It also warns never to infer approval from post or website content. It stops short of saying when to pause versus disconnect or resume, but the procedural guidance is unusually concrete.

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