send_message

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. The description reveals that the token is 'one-time' (consumable on use), that the action is irreversible (posts to Slack), and that confirmation requires explicit user approval. This is meaningful behavioral context. While it doesn't mention potential errors or rate limits, the core safety-relevant traits are disclosed.

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 tightly packed with zero wasted words. Every sentence earns its place: first states the action and prerequisite, second establishes exclusivity in the Slack-posting domain, third gives the approval precondition, and fourth documents the parameter. Well front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 tool has a single required parameter with a clear origin (from draft_message), an output schema exists, and the description fully explains the workflow (draft → review → approve → send). It's a simple tool and the description covers the essential workflow context thoroughly. Minor gap: doesn't mention what happens if the token is invalid or already used.

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 compensate. The single parameter (confirmation_token) is meaningfully explained as 'The one-time token returned by draft_message,' adding context about its origin and one-time nature beyond the bare schema title 'Confirmation Token.' This is sufficient for a single-parameter tool.

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+resource: 'Send a previously drafted message.' It explicitly distinguishes from siblings by noting 'This is the ONLY tool that posts to Slack' and references draft_message as its required precursor, making its relationship to sibling tools clear.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use conditions: only after draft_message has returned a token, and only after the user has reviewed the preview and explicitly approved. This effectively defines when NOT to call it (before user approval), and clearly differentiates it from read-only siblings like search_messages and read_thread.

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